M J SIMONREVISION Vs. P R NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner Mr. Chandramohan Nair and the respondent in person.

(2.) Brief facts necessary to be stated for the purpose of disposing of this revision are that Revision Petitioner filed O. P.313/92 before the District Forum, Kottayam and an order has been passed by that Forum in that O. P. allowing the Revision Petitioner herein to realise from the opposite party in that O. P. Rs.27,280.50 together with interest at 15% per annum. For reaping the fruits of the order that order was got transmitted for execution to City Civil Court, Bangalore under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 i. e. before the amendment of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act, 2002. The revision petitioner engaged the respondent in this revision as his lawyer for prosecuting the execution petition filed before the City Civil Court, Bangalore and the execution petition was dismissed as withdrawn by the Execution Court on the ground that the matter was settled between the parties. The revision petitioner was not satisfied with the settlement (not satisfied with the amount received by him as a result of the settlement) Rs.3,000 was only received by him as a result of settlement.

(3.) Alleging that the respondent herein who appeared for the decree-holder (revision petitioner herein) before City Civil Court, Bangalore was not given authority to settle the matter and make a statement before the execution Court on behalf of him i. e. , to allow him to withdraw the execution petition the revision petitioner herein filed O. P.1085/95 claiming compensation from the respondent alleging deficiency in service. After hearing both the parties the lower Forum passed an order holding that revision petitioner had suffered no loss due to the act of the respondent herein. It also held that Advocate fee paid to the respondent herein by the revision petitioner was neither excessive nor in excess of fee prescribed under provisions of the Advocates Fees Act (lower Forum based its conclusion relying on the fact that decree-holder in the EP admitted that the "ep entrusted to the opposite party was against non-existing firm" and that "the petitioner agreed that he received Rs.3,000 from the opposite party". Consequent on recording such a finding the lower Forum dismissed the complaint O. P.1085/95. Challenging that order passed by the lower Forum an appeal had been preferred before this commission as Appeal 1478/96 and the appeal also was dismissed conforming the order passed by the lower Forum. Against the order of dismissal of the appeal the revision petitioner herein preferred before the National Commission Revision Petition 243/98 and the National Commission passed order setting aside the order passed by the lower Forum and also the order passed in appeal by this Commission. The order passed by the National Commission is reproduced below: "it is the complainant who is the petitioner before us. His complaint was against the respondent Advocate. Alleged deficiency in service was that he made some statement on his behalf for with-drawal of the execution proceedings though he was not authorised for the same. It is stated that in a complaint filed by the petitioner against Man-Jog Group of Companies alleging deficiency in service he got a decree by way of compensation for Rs.27,280.50 with interest @ 15% per annum. That was ordered by the District Forum vide its order dated 24.7.1992. For execution of that order, case was transferred to City Civil Court, Bangalore. It is stated that there were many similarly situated persons whose cases were similarly transferred to the City Civil Court for execution. It appears that an association was formed by all these persons and Mr. P. R. P. Nair, respondent lawyer was entrusted the work to have the cases transferred to Bangalore City Civil Court. It is the contention of Mr. Prashant P. learned Counsel for the respondent that no statement was made by the respondent on behalf of the petitioner/complainant for with-drawal of the execution proceeding. It is also submitted by Mr. Prashant that due to the effort of the respondent, complainant has got Rs.3,000 only against his claim of Rs.34,000. It is not acceptable to us that as to how a Counsel can make a statement on behalf of the petitioner for withdrawal of the execution proceeding from whom he has not got any power of attorney. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the District Forum and the statement and the matter is reverted back to the District Forum for execution of its order as aforesaid for the balance amount as it is stated that the petitioner has already received Rs.3,000 from the Man-Jog Group of Companies. The Revision Petition is disposed of in above terms. "