SANTHANAM Vs. KAMARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant is the appellant. The complainant's case is briefly as follows: There was a dispute between the complainant and one Ponnusamy relating to a promissory note. The amount that was due by the complainant to Ponnusamy was paid and settled in the presence of Panchayatars and others. But the said Ponnusamy failed to return the promissory note and gave some excuses. Only after receipt of summons from the Court, the complainant realized that the said Ponnusamy was trying to cheat the complainant by filing a suit on discharged claim. The complainant approached Mr. Muthukrishnan, an Advocate of Thuraiyur and requested him to appear for him in the said proceeding. The said Advocate received a sum of Rs.500/- as fee and obtained the signature of the complainant on certain papers and Vakalat. At that time, Mr. Kamaraj, Junior Advocate of Mr. Muthukrishnan was present. Muthu Krishnan instructed Kamaraj to conduct the complainant's case and Kamaraj namely the opposite party, a Junior Advocate under Muthukrishnan promised to do so. Two years after that an Amin from the Trichy Court came, stating that the complainant's house is to be auctioned. Only then the complainant came to know that the case filed by the Ponnusamy had been decided ex parte. Immediately the complainant met Kamaraj at his house and accosted him. Kamaraj then said the complainant need not be disheartened and asked him to bring Rs.1,000/- and that he would file an application for restoration of the proceeding. Accordingly the complainant paid Rs.1,000/- and at the time certain signatures of the complainant were obtained by him on some papers. But Kamaraj failed to file any application. He was careless and negligent. Though the complainant has been meeting his Counsel quite often, the Counsel has been repeatedly saying that the complainant should not be in a hurry. The complainant thereafter came to know that the said Advocate has joined hands with his opponent. Therefore, the complainant approached another Lawyer of Thuraiyur and asked him to file an application in his case. By that time, there was a delay of 1100 days and, therefore, the application was dismissed against which the matter has been now taken up on appeal to the High Court. The High Court also dismissed the application. On account of the negligent act of the opposite party who did not take proper care of the case entrusted to him, the complainant has been put to loss. Therefore, the complainant prays for compensation.

(2.) In the version filed by the opposite party, he has stated as follows: The allegations made by the complainant are not true. It is not to say that the complainant has engaged a Lawyer in O. S. No.502/92 or a sum of Rs.1,000/- was paid as fees by the complainant to the opposite party. It is also not true to say that the opposite party has obtained signatures of the complainant on blank papers at that time. The other allegations are denied. The senior Advocate of the opposite party, Thiru Muthukrishnan was engaged by the complainant and it is he who has filed Vakalat and also signed the written statement. The matter was set ex parte on 29.3.1993. The complainant met Mr. Muthukrishnan and informed as he was unwell, he could not attend to the Court and, therefore, he filed an application through him on 8.4.1993 whereupon ex parte decree was set aside and the matter came up for trial. Even after that in spite of letter, by the said Muthukrishnan informing that the matter has been posted for trial on 19.7.1994, the complainant did not turn up, as a result the said Muthukrishnan informed 'no instruction' and again the suit was decreed as ex parte. Engaging a different Counsel the complainant filed an application to set aside the ex parte decree on 25.7.1997 and those applications were dismissed on 9.12.1998. The complainant thereupon took it up to the High Court which confirmed the order of the lower Court and dismissed the appeal. There was no direct contract between the complainant and the opposite party. There was no knowledge of the opposite party by the complainant. The complaint has not been filed within the time provided under law. There is no deficiency in service and, hence, the complaint may be dismissed.

(3.) The lower Forum after going through the records and the versions dismissed the complaint whereupon the complaint by way of an appeal is now before this Commission.