P.N.Rangaswamy vs RUPERT J.BARNABAS

THIS is a complaint under Section 17 read with Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

THIS complaint is against two lawyers. The Complainant is engaged in a number of suits and other litigations. It is his case that Mrs. Barnabas, wife of the 1st Opposite Party, Advocate introduced him to the 2nd Opposite Party during the absence of the 1st Opposite Party, at Delhi and the 2nd Opposite Party offered to file counters to the two writ petitions filed in the High Court, Madras and received a sum of Rs. 500/- from the Complainant. After the 1st Opposite Party returned from Delhi, the Complainant met him and engaged him to look after all his cases. He sent to the 1st Opposite Party a sum of Rs. 5,000/-by draft and agreed to pay further sum of Rs. 50,000/- or more as matters progressed. The 1st Opposite Party came to Coimbatore to conduct the case of the Complainant in O.S. No. 413 of 1990 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore. An young lawyer by name Mr. Edward also filed Vakalat on behalf of the Complainant. It is alleged by that Complainant that the 1st Opposite Party colluded with the other side through the Junior Advocate Mr. Edward. The case seems to have been adjourned on that day. The Complainant got disgusted and called upon the 1st Opposite Party to pay back the sum of Rs. 5.500/- (Rs. 5,000/- paid to him and Rs. 500/ - paid to the 2nd Opposite Party) and the case papers. He got back only some of the papers and the Opposite Parties refused to return the money. To the notice sent by the Complainant, the 1st Opposite Party sent an eight page reply threatening the Complainant. According to the Complainant, in addition to the case at Coimbatore, he engaged the 1st Opposite Party to file the counter and contest the writ petition at High Court, to file revision against the dismissal of the suit for default in the District Munsif''s Court, Udumalaipet to conduct the Complainant''s suit against Trans World Airlines in the City Civil Court, Madras, to conduct eight complaints against Lawyers before the Consumer Forums and appeals against some of them before the State Commission. The Complainant revoked the Vakalat given to the Opposite Party No. 1 in CS 413/90, at Coimbatore after the adjournment of the case. It is further alleged that the 1st Opposite Party returned the bundle relating to the case against the Trans World Airlines on 10th July when the Judge of the City Civil Court refused adjournment. The Opposite Parties have also failed to file counter in the writ petitions and vacate the stay. The case against the 2nd Opposite Party is that the Complainant paid him Rs. 500/- to prepare two counter statements to two writ petitions filed in the High Court, Madras, but he failed to do so. Hence he has claimed compensation on various grounds to the tune of Rs. 1,49,250/-. The 1st Opposite Party has filed a detailed counter. Characterising the Complainant has a habitual, vexatious, litigant. The 1st Opposite Party has pointed out that the Complainant has not only proceeded against the Advocates but also against the Judges of the Tamil Nadu State Higher and Subordinate Judicial Services. He has issued notices claiming compensation against the District Judge, Coimbatore, Sub-ordinate Judge, Thirupur, Subordinate Judge, Dindigul, Subordinate Judge, Udumalaipet, Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Madras, Registrar, High Court, Madras, Additional Registrar, High Court, Madras and also the Secretary, Bar Council, Tamil Nadu. He has so far filed 18 cases against the Members of the Bar before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Coimbatore and before this Commission claiming several lakhs of rupees as compensation. The complainant has thus committed not only contempt of Court, by making serious allegations against Judicial Officers, but has also been abusing the process of the Court. Very recently he has filed a petition against Miss K.V.K. Vasuki, Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore, who is presently hearing the Complainant''s case in O.S. No. 413 of 1990 on her file. On the merits of the allegations made against him, it is averred by the 1st Opposite Party that the Complainant has contacted his wife during the Complainant''s absence at Delhi and met him on 17.6.1992 after his return from Delhi. This Opposite Party at first refused to take a brief for the Complainant but on his insistence, he agreed. He claimed Rs. 10,000/ as fee and as Rs. 5,000/-as advance and the Complainant agreed. The Complainant sent a sum of Rs. 5,000/ by draft. This Opposite Party filed a Vakalat for the Complainant and appeared before the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore on 9.7.1992 in O.S. No. 413 of 1990. The local advocate for the Complainant was Mr. Edward. The case was adjourned on that day for filing o f documents at the next hearing. The sum of Rs. 5,000/- paid by the Complainant was agreed to be treated as fee for consultation, discussion and preparation of the case and the balance was agreed to be paid later. He also asked the 1st Opposite Party not to appear for the next hearing and he would manage the case through Mr. Edward and that he could come and argue at the last hearing. On 4.8.1992, the Complainant collected all the bundles and drafts prepared by the 1st Opposite Party and the same were never returned. To his surprise, this Opposite Party received a notice on 22.8.1992 calling upon the Complainant to pay back the sum of Rs. 5,000/- and the sum of Rs. 500/- said to have been paid to the 2nd Opposite Party. This Opposite Party sent a suitable reply on2.9.1992. The Complainant issued a rejoinder and the 1st Opposite Party sent a further reply. This Opposite Party came to know about the revocation of the Vakalat in O.S. No. 413 of 1990 only from this complaint. He has not stated about it in his notice dated 22.8.1992 on in the rejoinder dated 4.9.1992. Even though, the 1st Opposite Party was willing to conduct the case in the Sub-Court, Coimbatore, it is the Complainant who has prevented this Opposite Party from doing so by cancelling Vakalat. This Opposite Party did not receive any money from the Defendant in that case through a local Counsel and allegation of collusion are denied as baseless, mischievous, reckless and scurillous. It is also denied that this Opposite Party tried to get adjournment of the Complainant''s case against the Trans World Airlines in the City Civil Court, Madras. In the said case Mr. V. Achuthan was the Counsel for the Complainant and since the Complainant did not get the consent of Mr. S. Achuthan, this Opposite Party did not enter appearance for the Complainant in that case and did not file any vakalat. The allegation that this Opposite Party sought an adjournment in that case is another piece of deliberate falsehood. This Opposite Party has further denied that the Complainant had engaged him for 13 cases. He has not committed any deficiency of service or negligence. All the allegations are false and reckless and the Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the Complaint with examplary cost. It is also pointed out that the Complainant met this Opposite Party in the High Court and demanded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- from him for withdrawing the cases against this Opposite Party and this Opposite Party refused.

The 2nd Opposite Party has filed another detailed counter pointing out that the Complainant is a seasoned litigant who has filed cases not only against advocates but also against the Judges. According to this Opposite Party, the Complainant met him at his Chamber by referring to the 1st Opposite Party''s wife''s name and request him to prepare draft in some cases. This Opposite Party told him to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- for discussion and preparation. The Complainant was reluctant and went away. Subsequently on 22.8.1992, the Opposite Party was surprised to receive notice from the Complainant calling upon to him to pay back Rs. 500/-. This Opposite Party did not receive Rs. 500/- or any other fees from the Complainant. He never offered to file Vakalat for the Complainant. The case against this Opposite Party is frivolous and vexatious and he claimed for dismissal of the complaint with compensatory costs.

EXHIBTS A-1 to A-7 and B-1 to B-7are marked by consent. Proof affidavit by Opposite Parties 1 and 2 are filed. A reading of the Complaint will show that the Complainant who is old and infirm person is a seasoned litigant. By his own admission made in the complaint, he has a number of cases on his hand. Apart from this complaint filed before this Commission against two members of legal profession practising in the High Court, he has a suit in O.S. No. 413 of 1990 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, two writ petitions against him in the High Court, Madras, a revision to be filed against the dismissal for default of his suit in the Court of the District Munsif, Udumalaipet, a suit in O.S. No. 9355 of 1988 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras against the Trans World Airlines, and eight complaints against Lawyers, before the Consumer Forums and appeals against the some of them before this Commission (Vide paragraph 7 of the Complaint). The Opposite Parties 1 and 2 in their counters have pointed out that the Complainant has issued notices to several Judges, of Tamil Nadu State Higher and Sub-ordinate Judicial Service such as District Judge, Coimbatore, Sub-Judges of Coimbatore, Thirupur, Dindigul and Udumalaipet, Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Madras, Registrar and Additional Registrar, High Court, Madras and Secretary, Bar Council, Tamil Nadu, claiming huge amounts as compensation. These allegations are not denied before us by the Complainant.

THE Complaint now filed before us against two Members of the Bar at Madras is a jumbled one with vague and wild allegations. After going through the complaint and hearing the Complainant, we have been able to cull out the following points of deficiency of service and negligence attributed to the two Opposite Parties. (i) THE 1st Opposite Party entered appearance for the Complainant in O.S. No. 413 of 1990 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore on 9.7.1992 and took an adjournment of the case. (ii) THE 1st Opposite Party colluded with the Defendants in O.S. No. 413 of 1990 of Sub-Court, Coimbatore through Mr. Edward, Advocate who was appearing for the Complainant previously.

(iii) THE Complainant revoked the Vakalat of the 1st Opposite Party in O.S. No. 413 of 1990 on the file of the Sub-Court Coimbatore and called upon the 1st Opposite Party to return the papers and the sum of Rs. 5,500/- but the 1st Opposite Parly returned only the some of the papers and refused to return the money.

(iv) THE 1st Opposite Party did not prepare and file a revision petition in the High Court against the dismissal of the Complainant''s suit for default in O.S. No. 369 of 1986 on the file of the District Munsif, Udumalaipet. (v) THE 1st Opposite Party entered appearance for the Complainant on 10.7.1992 in O.S. No. 9355 of 1988 on the file of the City Civil Court filed by the Complainant against Trans World Airlines and sought an adjournment and when adjournment was refused, he handed over the bundle to the complainant.

(vi) THE 1st Opposite Party failed to file counters to the two writ-petitions filed against the Complainant in the High Court, Madras in W.P. No. 5552of 1992and 7998 of 1992. (vii) THE 2nd Opposite Party received Rs. 500/ - from him for filing the counters in two writ-petitions in the High Court, but fail to do so.

Points (i) and (ii): The Complainant has met the 1st Opposite Party at Madras and engaged him for appearing for him in O.S. No. 413 of 1990 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore. A sum of Rs. 5,000/- has been paid for the said case as advance. The 1st Opposite Party has gone to Coimbatore and entered appearance on 9.7.1992. On that day, the trial did not take place and the case has been adjourned by the Court, on the ground that the Defendant in that case had to communicate to the Plaintiff (Complainant) his consent for appointment of an Arbitrator and also for filing of documents. The mere fact that Judge has adjourned the case is no ground to hold that the Counsel appearing for the party was negligent. The contention of the complainant is that the 1st Opposite Party colluded with the Defendants in O.S. No. 413 of 1990 through the Complainant''s Advocate Mr. Edward and had taken adjournment. Excepting for this allegation for collusion in the complaint there is no even iota evidence to substantiate this wild and serious allegation against the 1st Opposite Party. Without any basis whatsoever, the Complainant has come forward in a casual and light-hearted manner with an allegation of collusion against the 1st Opposite Party. We are unable to find any deficiencies on the part of the Opposite Party as alleged by the Complainant. On the other hand, we are constrained to observe that the Complainant has chosen to make such a wild allegation frivolously. Point No. (iii): The Complainant has revoked the Vakalat of the Ist Opposite Party in O.S. No. 413 of 1990, Sub-Court, Coimbatore on 15.7.1990 of which the 1st Opposite Party has come to know only from the allegations made in this complaint before us. The case of the complainant is that after revoking the vakalat he called-upon the Ist Opposite Party to return the case bundle and refund the suni of Rs. 5,500/-. But according to him the Ist Opposite Party returned only some of the papers. According to the 1st Opposite Party, all the papers were returned and there was no question of refunding the sum of Rs. 5,000/- paid to him as advance for his appearance on behalf of the Complainant in O.S. No. 413 of 1990. After accepting the Vakalat, the 1st Opposite Party has gone to Coimbatore and entered appearance on behalf of the complainant on 9.7.1992 He has performed his part of the contract by appearing for him, but the case has been adjourned on that day. The 1st Opposite Party has been ready and willing to continue to appear for the Comlainant in that case, but is the Complainant who has revoked the Vakalat and the 1st Opposite Party cannot be accused of any negligence, in refusing to return the sum of Rs. 5,000/-paid for that case. As regards the sum of Rs. 500/-, the said sum has been paid by the Complainant not to the 1st Opposite Party but the 2nd Opposite Party and there is no meaning in claiming that amount from the 1st Opposite Party. This point also must fail.

POINT No. (iv): This point relates to the alleged failure of the Ist Opposite Party to file a revision against the dismissal of the Complainant''s suit in O.S. No. 369 of 1986 on the file of the District Munsif, Udumalaipet. There is absolutely no evidence to show that the Opposite Party No. 1 was engaged for this purpose nor was any fee paid to him for filing this revision In the circumstances, no deficiency of service or negligence can be attributed to the 1st Opposite Party.

POINT No. (v): It is alleged by the Complainant that the Ist Opposite Party appearing for him in O.S. No. 9355 of 1988 on the file of the City Civil Court on 10.7.1992 and applied for an adjournment but the Court refused to adjourn the case whereupon the 1st Opposite Party returned the bundle to the Complainant and the Complainant has to conduct the case himself. It is the case of the Opposite Party -1 that he was never engaged by the Complainant to appear for him in O.S. No. 9355 of 1988 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras and he did not file any Vakalat for the Complainant. According to the 1st Opposite Party one Mr. V. Achuthan was the Counsel on record for the Complainant in the said case, that the 1st Opposite Party asked the complainant to secure the consent of Mr. V. Achuthan for changing of Vakalat and as the Complainant did not get the consent he did not appear for the Complainant. The 1st Opposite Party is categorical that he did not file any Vakalat for the Complainant in the said suit. Nothing could have been easier for the Complainant than to summon and produce the Vakalat, if any, filed by the 1st Opposite Party in O.S. No. 9355 of 1988, City Civil Court, Madras to show that the 1st Opposite Party entered appearance for him but to refuse to conduct the case. The Complainant has not chosen to do so. We are therefore necessarily to conclude that the 1st Opposite Party has not entered appearance for the Complainants in O.S. No. 9355 of 1988 on the file of the City Civil Court, and there is therefore no question of any deficiency of service or negligence on his part. Point No. (vi): It is further alleged by the Complainant that the 1st Opposite Party did not file counters in W.P. No. 5552 of 1992 and W.P. No. 7998 of 1992 on behalf of the Complainant. Hear again, there is no evidence to show that the Complainant engaged the 1st Opposite Party or paid any fees to him for entering appearance in these Writ Petitions or filing counter therein. It cannot therefore be alleged that there was any negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the 1st Opposite Party on this point also.

Point No. (vii): The case against the 2nd Opposite Party is that he received Rs. 500/- from the Complainant for preparing the counters or rather for correcting the counters prepared by the Complainant and filing the same in the High Court in W.P. No. 5552 of 1992 and 7998 of 1992. The 2nd Opposite Party denies that, and avers that when the Complainant met him, he demanded a sum of Rs. 1,000/- for preparing the counter that the Complainant was reluctant and went away and that he did not receive Rs. 500/- or any sum of money from the Complainant in this matter. His sworn affidavit is unrebutted and we accept the same. We hold that the Complainant has not engaged the services of the 2nd Opposite Party for filing counters in W.P. No. 5552 of 1992 and W.P.No.2998 of 1992 and the allegations of deficiency of service or negligence attributed to him are baseless and frivolous.

IN the result, all the allegations levelled against the Opposite Parties are false, frivolous and vexatious and the complaint has to fail. IN view of the frivolous nature of the complaint, we are inclined to award exemplary cost against the Complainant. But taking into consideration his age and infirmity, we are inclined to award a sum of Rs. 2,000/- only to each of the Opposite Parties. In the result, the complaint fails and is dismissed with cost of Rs. 2,000/- to each of the Opposite Parties. Complaint dismissed with costs.