R.K. KANNAPPAN vs K.P.K. KOMALAM

THE point involved for consideration is simple. THE complainant engaged the services of the opposite party/appellant herein, who is a Lawyer in connection with the land acquisition proceedings. THE Sub-Court, Gobichettipalayam awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,82,271.43 for the lands acquired from the complainant. THE said amount was later on deposited by the Land Acquisition Officer into Court and the complainant''s Counsel was issued a cheque for the said sum on his application. THE complainant''s Counsel retained a sum of Rs. 23,000/- out of the same towards his fees and expenses and gave a cheque to the complainant only for a sum of Rs. 1,59,271/-. THE complainant alleging that there is deficiency in service and that the retention of Rs. 23,000/- by the opposite party is unjustified, laid the complaint.

THE opposite party contended that he represented the complaint even before the Land Acquisition Officer at the time of acquisition and later before the Sub-Court, Gobichettipalayam. Since the complainant was unable to pay any fee, it was agreed between the parties that the complainant would pay 10% towards fees of the amount awarded by the Sub-Court and the expenses to be incurred in conducting the case before the Court at the time of trial and on the realization of the award amount, the said amount shall be deducted and the balance alone need be paid to the complainant. The lower Forum did not accept the version of the opposite party and passed an award for a sum of Rs. 11,000/- and a cost of Rs. 500/-. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is laid.

It is necessary to point out that the appellant once filed writ petition stating that the provision of the Act will not be applicable to him and the said writ petition was dismissed. Then, after notice on this proceedings was issued to him, he filed another writ to quash the same, which was also dismissed. The appellant sets up an agreement which cannot be enforced since it amounts to champerty. It is not known how the appellant can set up such an agreement in law. According to the complainant, he has paid a sum of Rs. 6,000/- towards fees and expenses to the opposite party. The opposite party''s contention that the complainant was poor and not in a position to pay, cannot be accepted at all when the lands belonging to him have been acquired in respect of which proceedings were launched. Therefore, the complainant was not a person without meals. The complainant refers to a receipt alleged to have been executed by the opposite party. The opposite party does not say whether there was such an agreement between him and other claimants or not. For, there are other claimants besides the complainant herein, who was the first claimant in the L.A.O.P. proceedings. The complainant has produced the receipt from all the claimants. While the receipts from the other claimants are in a typed form, curiously enough, the receipt alleged to have been issued by the complainant is in manuscript. While the other receipts of the other claimants are not attested by any other parties, strangely enough, the receipt issued by the complainant is attested by one J. Mohan. There is no proof affidavit filed from the said Mohan. This is not explained by the opposite party as to why he did not choose to obtain attestation of the complainant''s husband and why is it that this receipt alone is not typed while other receipts are typed. It is also to be pointed out that in the other receipts, E.A. number is not mentioned. The opposite party also relies upon a receipt said to have been given by the complainant on the docket-sheet maintained by him. The docket-sheet of the case is also marked on the side of the opposite party. In the docket-sheet we also find that the other claimants R. Marudhachalam, Kumarasamy and Nanchappa Gounder have all signed stating that they received the amount due to them by way of cheque. But the endorsement dated 16.3.1992 in the docket-sheet is in a different handwriting. It further reads that the appellant herein is permitted to retain Rs. 23,000/- towards his fees and expenses. Whereas earlier receipt which does not bear any date reads that she has received Rs. 1,82,271/- after adjusting a sum of Rs. 23,000/- due towards Advocate fees and expenses and by way of cheque for Rs. 1,59,271/-. Therefore, pointing out to these discrepancies, the lower Forum has rightly held that the receipt cannot be accepted as a true document. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant would say that the complainant has not stated in the complaint anything to attack the genuineness of the receipt. The failure of the complainant to mention about the receipt is not fatal to her case. Because it cannot be presumed or held that the complainant accepts such a receipt. The argument that the appellant had sufficient amount in his account to pay the entire amount and, therefore, he would not have stated that the sum of Rs. 23,000/- was not available with him on that day, hence on that ground alone the complaint should be dismissed is again without force. The complainant only states what the opposite party told her. For all we know that the opposite party would have just stated so with a view to put off the complainant. The complainant cannot know about the Bank accounts of the opposite party and the amount lying to his credit in the Bank account. Therefore, nothing will turn on this aspect as well. Hence, on an analysis, we are satisfied that the lower Forum has come to a proper conclusion that there has been deficiency in service and had accepted the complaint in part.

SITTING in appeal, we do not find anything in the order passed by the lower Forum. Not there is error of appreciation. Nor it can be stated that there is non-application of mind. Hence, in such circumstances, we dismiss the appeal confirming the order passed by the lower Forum. In the circumstances, we direct the parties bear their own costs. Appeal dismissed.