T S KRISHNAMOORTH Vs. MERCURY CHEMICALS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer in the writ petition reads as follows:-

(2.) THE case of the petitioner as seen from the affidavit filed in support of the above writ petition is briefly stated hereunder:-THE petitioner is one of the senior members of the Tiruppattur Bar. According to him, the first respondent herein has preferred a complaint in O.P.No.1223 of 93 before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Madras, the second respondent herein, under Sec. 12 of the Consumer Protection act, 1986, read with rule 5 of the Tamil Nadu Consumer Protection Rules, 1988 against the petitioner claiming Rs.4,375-75 and Rs.21,612-35 on the alleged ground that he failed and neglected to discharge his professional duties in filing a suit on behalf of the 1st respondent herein and he has not diligently conducted R.E.P.265 of 91 in O.S.No.4458 of 85 on the file of District Munsif, Tiruppathur, North Arcot, Ambedkhar District. It is further averred that the very complaint itself is false and the first respondent has chosen to prefer the complaint only for the purpose of teasing and annoying the petitioner for incorrect and inappropriate reasons.

(3.) ON the other hand, Mr.K.Srinivasan, after pointing out Sec. 13 (4) of the Act submitted that the second respondent has jurisdiction to dispose of the said complaint. He further submitted that even otherwise the issue can be decided by the second respondent itself and there is not need to consider the same in the present writ petition.