R.MANGALA THANARAJ vs V.VENKATASAMY

THIS action has come up for admission before us today. The complainant one R. Mangala Thanaraj, it appears, is a former Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District, Tamil Nadu Police Service. He is presently confined at the Central Prison, Trichy as a convict prisoner. He has been brought before us today from the said Central Jail so as to enable him to put forth his submissions in this action.

WE heard his arguments. WE also perused the materials placed on record. Such perusal reveals the following factors : (1) He, it appears, engaged the services of the opposite party one Mr. V. Venkatasamy, Advocate, having his Chamber at the High Court Buildings, Madras-104 for consideration quantified in a sum of Rs. 10,000/- : (i) for filing a contempt application before the High Court of Judicature; and (ii) to file a petition before the State Administrative Tribunal relatable to his promotion. (2) It appears, the contempt application had been filed before the High Court and the application so filed, it appears, had been returned for rectification of certain defects. The returned application had not been taken by the said Advocate/opposite party and file the same after complying with the rectification of defects. The net result was that the contempt application was not at all taken on file by the High Court of Judicature. Alleging the factors as above, the complainant knocked at the doors of this Commission alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, viz., Mr. V. Venkatasamy, Advocate and claiming certain reliefs as prayed for in the complaint.

The reliefs he has prayed for in the complaint for such deficiency in service under various heads is compensation quantified in a sum of Rs. 10,88,390/-. Even assuming for argument sake though not admitting that there was deficiency in service on the part of the said Advocate, under the two counts as stated earlier, compensation if at all to be awarded to the complainant, we rather feel cannot exceed the pecuniary jurisdiction of the concerned competent District Forum. We are also of the view that the claim had been escalated to attract the jurisdiction of this Commission added by the fact that there is no Court-fee to be paid for any claim made in any FORA constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

For the reasons as above, the complaint as filed, is returned to the complainant so as to enable him to file the same before the competent District Forum, ofcourse after amending the reliefs he has prayed for in a suitable way. One month time is given for presenting the returned complaint to the competent District Forum from today. The Registry is directed to return this complaint forthwith to the complainant-convict prisoner, after getting the necessary and requisite endorsement for the return of the complaint and other documents he had filed alongwith it. Complaint returned.