CDCRF Imposed Fine On Advocate
The Coimbatore District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (CDCRF) has imposed a fine on a Chennai-based High Court advocate, holding him responsible for deficiency in service, causing mental agony and loss to a litigant in a civil dispute.The forum led by its President S.A. Sriramalu along with members Madhavi and K. Rathnam passed the orders while disposing of a petition by V. Karuppusamy and two others from Avinashi.
The petitioners contended that in August 1995 they had moved a petition before the Tiruppur Munsif Court seeking relief in a civil dispute wherein the petitioner alleged that Marakutty & Muthusamy (legal heirs of Pongiya Gounder and Pongiammal who sold the land to the petitioner) were causing hindrance to his agricultural activities on the land. The Tiruppur Munsif Court had granted an injunction in favour of the petitioner.Challenging the same, the respondents moved a civil appeal before the Tirupur Sub Court which in its orders nullified the orders of the Munsif Court.
However the sub court did not grant any relief in terms of change of ownership of the land. Seeking endorsements and modifications to the orders of the Tirupur sub court the petitioner in this case Mr. Karuppusamy approached the advocates for moving an appeal before the Madras High Court. Under such circumstances, the petitioner sought relief and compensation from the advocates K. Subburayan of Tirupur, K. Srinivasan of Madurai and E. Ulaganathan of Chennai, for the delay that had been caused in moving the appeal.
The petitioner observed that the delay of 3,728 days was a clear case of deficiency in service causing mental agony and loss. For the act of colluding with the opposite parties contrary to the interest of the litigant and justice, the advocates were liable to pay compensation, the petitioner said. He said that one of the advocates had misled the petitioner by not informing him that the High Court had rejected the petition seeking exoneration of the delay. The opposite parties in this case i.e., the three advocates in their separate counters had maintained that the delay was not because of them and held the petitioner responsible.
They further added the case was not sustainable before this forum either by the facts or by the merits of the case. The forum on completion of the hearing concluded that the petitioner had failed to prove his case against the first respondent and added that the second respondent in this case was implicated wrongly. Finally, the forum observed that the charges against the third respondent had alone been proved by the petitioner.
Hence, the forum directed the third respondent namely advocate E. Ulaganathan to refund the service charge of Rs.46,500 (collected from the petitioner) with interest from the date of remittance by the petitioner till the date of refund by the advocate.It ordered compensation of Rs.1 lakh again with 18 per cent interest from the date of order till the date of settlement.The petitioner was also entitled to receive Rs.2,000 as the cost of litigation.The above said compensation, refund with interest and cost of litigation would have to be paid within two months from the date of the order.Failing this, the petitioner was at liberty to proceed under Sections 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, the forum said.
