P N RANGASWAMY Vs. RUPERT J BARNABAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a complaint under Sec.17 read with Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

(2.) This complaint is against two lawyers. The Complainant is engaged in a number of suits and other litigations. It is his case that Mrs. Barnabas, wife of the 1st Opposite Party, Advocate introduced him to the 2nd Opposite Party during the absence of the 1st Opposite Party, at Delhi and the 2nd Opposite Party offered to file counters to the two writ petitions filed in the High Court, Madras and received a sum of Rs.500/- from the Complainant. After the 1st Opposite Party returned from Delhi, the Complainant met him and engaged him to look after all his cases. He sent to the 1st Opposite Party a sum of Rs.5,000/-by draft and agreed to pay further sum of Rs.50,000/- or more as matters progressed. The 1st Opposite Party came to Coimbatore to conduct the case of the Complainant in O. S. No.413 of 1990 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore. An young lawyer by name Mr. Edward also filed Vakalat on behalf of the Complainant. It is alleged by that Complainant that the 1st Opposite Party colluded with the other side through the Junior Advocate Mr. Edward. The case seems to have been adjourned on that day. The Complainant got disgusted and called upon the 1st Opposite Party to pay back the sum of Rs.5.500/- (Rs.5,000/- paid to him and Rs.500/- paid to the 2nd Opposite Party) and the case papers. He got back only some of the papers and the Opposite Parties refused to return the money. To the notice sent by the Complainant, the 1st Opposite Party sent an eight page reply threatening the Complainant. According to the Complainant, in addition to the case at Coimbatore, he engaged the 1st Opposite Party to file the counter and contest the writ petition at High Court, to file revision against the dismissal of the suit for default in the District Munsif's Court, Udumalaipet to conduct the Complainant's suit against Trans World Airlines in the City Civil Court, Madras, to conduct eight complaints against Lawyers before the Consumer Forums and appeals against some of them before the State Commission. The Complainant revoked the Vakalat given to the Opposite Party No.1 in CS 413/90, at Coimbatore after the adjournment of the case. It is further alleged that the 1st Opposite Party returned the bundle relating to the case against the Trans World Airlines on 10th July when the Judge of the City Civil Court refused adjournment. The Opposite Parties have also failed to file counter in the writ petitions and vacate the stay. The case against the 2nd Opposite Party is that the Complainant paid him Rs.500/- to prepare two counter statements to two writ petitions filed in the High Court, Madras, but he failed to do so. Hence he has claimed compensation on various grounds to the tune of Rs.1,49,250/-.

(3.) The 1st Opposite Party has filed a detailed counter. Characterising the Complainant has a habitual, vexatious, litigant. The 1st Opposite Party has pointed out that the Complainant has not only proceeded against the Advocates but also against the Judges of the Tamil Nadu State Higher and Subordinate Judicial Services. He has issued notices claiming compensation against the District Judge, Coimbatore, Sub-ordinate Judge, Thirupur, Subordinate Judge, Dindigul, Subordinate Judge, Udumalaipet, Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Madras, Registrar, High Court, Madras, Additional Registrar, High Court, Madras and also the Secretary, Bar Council, Tamil Nadu. He has so far filed 18 cases against the Members of the Bar before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Coimbatore and before this Commission claiming several lakhs of rupees as compensation. The complainant has thus committed not only contempt of Court, by making serious allegations against Judicial Officers, but has also been abusing the process of the Court. Very recently he has filed a petition against Miss K. V. K. Vasuki, Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore, who is presently hearing the Complainant's case in O. S. No.413 of 1990 on her file. On the merits of the allegations made against him, it is averred by the 1st Opposite Party that the Complainant has contacted his wife during the Complainant's absence at Delhi and met him on 17.6.1992 after his return from Delhi. This Opposite Party at first refused to take a brief for the Complainant but on his insistence, he agreed. He claimed Rs.10,000/ as fee and as Rs.5,000/-as advance and the Complainant agreed. The Complainant sent a sum of Rs.5,000/ by draft. This Opposite Party filed a Vakalat for the Complainant and appeared before the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore on 9.7.1992 in O. S. No.413 of 1990. The local advocate for the Complainant was Mr. Edward. The case was adjourned on that day for filing o f documents at the next hearing. The sum of Rs.5,000/- paid by the Complainant was agreed to be treated as fee for consultation, discussion and preparation of the case and the balance was agreed to be paid later. He also asked the 1st Opposite Party not to appear for the next hearing and he would manage the case through Mr. Edward and that he could come and argue at the last hearing. On 4.8.1992, the Complainant collected all the bundles and drafts prepared by the 1st Opposite Party and the same were never returned. To his surprise, this Opposite Party received a notice on 22.8.1992 calling upon the Complainant to pay back the sum of Rs.5,000/- and the sum of Rs.500/- said to have been paid to the 2nd Opposite Party. This Opposite Party sent a suitable reply on2.9.1992. The Complainant issued a rejoinder and the 1st Opposite Party sent a further reply. This Opposite Party came to know about the revocation of the Vakalat in O. S. No.413 of 1990 only from this complaint. He has not stated about it in his notice dated 22.8.1992 on in the rejoinder dated 4.9.1992. Even though, the 1st Opposite Party was willing to conduct the case in the Sub-Court, Coimbatore, it is the Complainant who has prevented this Opposite Party from doing so by cancelling Vakalat. This Opposite Party did not receive any money from the Defendant in that case through a local Counsel and allegation of collusion are denied as baseless, mischievous, reckless and scurillous. It is also denied that this Opposite Party tried to get adjournment of the Complainant's case against the Trans World Airlines in the City Civil Court, Madras. In the said case Mr. V. Achuthan was the Counsel for the Complainant and since the Complainant did not get the consent of Mr. S. Achuthan, this Opposite Party did not enter appearance for the Complainant in that case and did not file any vakalat. The allegation that this Opposite Party sought an adjournment in that case is another piece of deliberate falsehood. This Opposite Party has further denied that the Complainant had engaged him for 13 cases. He has not committed any deficiency of service or negligence. All the allegations are false and reckless and the Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the Complaint with examplary cost. It is also pointed out that the Complainant met this Opposite Party in the High Court and demanded a sum of Rs.50,000/- from him for withdrawing the cases against this Opposite Party and this Opposite Party refused.