Kalla Srinivasa Murthy vs K Vishnu

AGGRIEVED litigant has filed this complaint against an Advocate, Mr. K. Vishnu of Eluru, Andhra Pradesh. In substance, grievance is non -return of case papers when demanded by the complainant.

BEFORE deciding the matter we have taken up the written submissions tendered on 19.11.2004. Therein also it is prayed that opposite party be directed to immediately return papers, namely 6.1.1975 to 31.3.1997 note -book and account books including empty signed papers, etc., and has claimed lakhs of rupees from the opposite parties who are Advocates engaged by him. Prima facie, we do not find any substance in this complaint.

IT is the say of the complainant that he is having a shop for repairing electronic items. The shop was taken on rent and that he has started the business after taking loan of Rs. 25,000 from a Bank. After some time some differences have cropped between him and the landlord of his shop, the landlord did not accept the rent of Rs. 225, per month, and he had filed R.C.C. No. 20/1986 before the Principal District Munsif Court, Eluru and got permission to deposit the rent through the Advocate. Thereafter, the landlord filed R.C.C. No. 16/1987 before the same Court for eviction of the complainant. In order to reply the eviction notice, the complainant availed the services of Mr. K. Vishnu, an Advocate and had entrusted his case papers to him. Thereafter he had filed an I.A. in R.C.C. No. 16/1987 for a direction to the landlord to restart his amenity of antenna which is essential for T.V. servicing. That I.A. was dismissed by the Rent Controller. On the advice of his Counsel, he had filed C.M.A. No. 15/98 on the file of Sub -Court, Eluru, and also an I.A. for restoring the amenity of antenna. It is the allegation of the complainant that the opposite party No. 1 had informed him that some directions were given by the Sub -Court, Eluru, in his favour and, thereafter, the opposite party No. 1 had not shown the said directions nor saw that the same are implemented.

SINCE the complainant was not happy with the opposite party No. 1 he had finally informed him over phone on 4.7.1990 that he would like to change the Advocate, and demanded no objection certificate to enable him to engage the services of another Advocate. Thereafter, the complainant filed a petition before the Munsif Court, Eluru, for necessary directions to the opposite party No. 1 to return his records with no objection certificate.

IT is alleged in the complaint that on 24.7.1990 the opposite party No. 1 had sent a letter to the complainant requesting him to take his record on settlement of fee, to which letter, the complainant replied on the very next day. On 8.8.1990 the Munsif directed the opposite party No. 1 to return the papers with no objection certificate. Thereafter, the complainant met the District Judge. The learned District Judge, upon hearing both sides, directed the complainant to pay Rs. 994 to the opposite party No. 1 towards the balance fee. Thereafter the opposite party No. 1 appeared in the Principal District Munsif, Eluru and took time till 14.12.1990 to return the documents.

SINCE the opposite party No. 1 did not return the documents till the date of filing of this complaint, i.e., 29.12.1990, the complainant filed this complaint before this Commission claiming, in all, Rs. 19,98,000. Bifurcation is as under: Loss in business due to inefficient service of the opposite party from December, 1998 to December, 1990 i.e., for 24 months at the rate of Rs. 300 per day i.e., 30 x Rs. 300 = Rs. 9,000 i.e., Rs. 9,000 x 24 =Rs. 3,16,000 (sic.) Loss of business in TV assembling portable For his family T.V. sets 36 cms. From April 1990 to December, 1990, i.e., at Rs. 400 per set i.e., 250 per month i.e., 2,250 sets i.e., Rs. 400 x 2,250 sets =Rs. 9,00,000 Mental agony, torture, insult, loss of prestige and reputation, etc. =Rs. 7,82,000 =Rs. 19,98,000 Submissions of the opposite party No. 1:

Opposite party No. 1 filed his reply wherein it has refuted the allegations by stating that required papers were sent to the complainant by registered post on 11.2.1991 which were received by the complainant on 21.2.1991; the rented shop in question was delivered to the landlord on 11.2.2000 pursuant to the order of Court; the A.P. Bar Council did not find any deficiency in services rendered by the Advocates against whom complaints were lodged by the complainant; as far as provision of amenity of antenna, the Rent Control Court, Eluru and the Appellate Court in CMA No. 15/88 have held that the said amenity is not the part of the leasehold rights and hence negatived the contention of the complainant and in revision, the orders of the two lower Tribunals were upheld; the complainant has refused to take the records from the chamber of the opposite party No. 1, and in turn wanted to get all the records produced before the Court and hand over, for which course the opposite party No. 1 did not agree as it is against the dignity and decorum of the legal profession; except disposal of I.A. in R.C.C. No. 16/87, the other matters entrusted to the opposite party No. 1 were not commenced for trial and as such the question of threat of spoiling cases and get them conducted by another Advocate did not arise; as far as antenna is concerned, the Eluru Court granted permission to the complainant to use the stair, case for refixing the antenna and the order in this connection was served on the landlord. As the landlord did not comply with the order of the complainant, a memo dated 21.12.1988 duly signed by the complainant was filed in the Court, followed by an I.A. No. 617 of 1989 filed by the opposite party No. 1 on behalf of the complainant to punish the landlord for disobedience of the order of the Court.

IT is also submitted that the complainant is an adept in vilifying compaign and in course of which, he has not spared anybody. Accordingly, complainant made galaxy of Advocates, who appeared for him by wrongly targeting them. It is significant to note that the complainant has stretched his relief even against the landlord and Advocate who appeared for the landlord as stated in Complaint No. 115/99 before the A.P. Bar Council, filed against Advocates ''to take necessary action against all the respondents, landlord, landlord Advocates and others of the landlord.''

FINALLY , it is contended that the complainant is not consumer within the meaning of the Act. Findings: Firstly, we have to state that the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the opposite party that the complaint before the Consumer Forum is not maintainable, is without any substance and is not pressed in view of the definition of the words consumer and service under Sections 2(1)(d) and 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

IT is also to be stated that the opposite party had filed a Writ Petition No. 1161/91 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh praying that proceedings against him before the National Commission were not maintainable, and further proceedings before this Commission were stayed.

THE High Court by order dated 21.7.2000 elaborately discussed the contention raised by the opposite party and relied upon the decision rendered by the Apex Court in M. Veerappa v. Evelyn Sequeira, AIR 1998 SC 506, wherein it is held that the legal practitioners are liable to be sued for negligence in the performance of their duties, and dismissed the writ petition. The High Court also pertinently observed that the contention of the opposite party that there is no deficiency in service and in any case the claim is highly exaggerated is not without any force. But, it is for the National Consumer Forum which is seized of the matter to look into this aspect. We cannot at this stage keep the controversy at bay by foreclosing further proceedings before the National Consumer Forum.

WE have also perused the papers, considered the contentions raised by the complainant, and also the strictures passed by the High Court against the complainant. We do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Complainants papers sent by registered post were received by the complainant.

WE have to further state that the claim made in this complaint deserves no consideration. The complainant has claimed lakhs of rupees for the alleged deficiency. As we have found that there is no deficiency, further aspect is not required to be considered. Hence this complaint is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Complaint dismissed.