K. MUTHUCHAMY Vs. DR. C. GOMATHY AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This First Appeal, under section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), has been preferred by the Appellant/sole Opposite Party in the complaint, questioning the legality and correctness of the order dated 15.04.2011, passed by the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Chennai (for short "the State Commission") in Complaint No. 173 of 2000. By the impugned order, the State Commission has partly allowed the Complaint filed by the Respondent herein alleging professional misconduct and unfair trade practice on the part of the Appellant in filing a Civil Suit [O.S. No. 143 of 1994/O.S. No. 1274 of 1995] against her seeking a declaration to the effect that she was not the legally wedded wife of deceased Dr. Eswaran, and injunction restraining her from withdrawing her share in the amount awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) in OP No. 90/1991 in which he had appeared on her behalf. The Fora below has directed the Appellant to pay to her a sum of 1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and 5,000/- as costs.

(2.) Succinctly put, the facts giving rise to the present Appeal, as pleaded in the Complaint, are as under:-

(3.) In the aforesaid factual backdrop, the Complainant filed Complaint under the Act, against the Appellant, inter-alia, alleging that on account of the professional misconduct on the part of the Appellant, her image as doctor was badly tarnished in the eyes of the society; she had to face insult till date even after the dismissal of the Suit against her; she had suffered loss of interest on amount of 1,29,954/- awarded in her favour by the MACT. The Complainant prayed for a compensation of 5,00,000/-, each for the loss suffered on account of tarnishing of her image and professional mis-conduct on the part of the Appellant along with interest @ 24% on the amount of 1,29,954/- as also 5,000/- as costs of litigation.