IMPORTANT POINT
For losing cases clients cannot be permitted to level charge of deficiency in service on part of arguing Counsel.

P.N. Kashalkar, Presiding Member— By this common judgment we are disposing of First Appeal No.09/2008 filed by the original Opponent and First Appeal No.163/2008 filed by the original Complainant challenging the judgment and award passed by the Consumer disputes Redressal Forum, Mumbai Suburban District on 6.12.2007. By allowing the complaint partly filed by Ms. Krishna Singh, the District Forum, directed the Opponent Advocate to refund an amount of Rs.3,750 and Rs.10,000 and also directed to pay cost of Rs.1,000 within 30 days from the date of receipt of order and rest of the relief’s were dismissed. As such, both, original Complainant as well as original Opponent, have filed these two appeals.

2. Facts to the extent material may be stated as under:

Complainant appears to be an Assistant Art Director who was employed by M/s. Design Works, Jogeshwari (W), Mumbai. But, she was not paid her dues for some period. Then she filed complaint under M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act, 1971, before Industrial Tribunal, Mumbai for non-payment of her salary parts totally amounting to Rs.60,000. For filing proceeding before Industrial Tribunal she availed services of Opponent Advocate.

The Complainant pleaded that while filing proceeding under U.L.P. Petition No.14/2006 the Advocate had not explained the delay in filing the appeal properly.

As such her application for condonation of delay was rejected by order dated 13.7.2006. According to her the Advocate was guilty of negligence in not informing her and guiding her properly. She is also guilty of deficiency in service and for deficient service and negligence of the Advocate she suffered loss of Rs.60,000 and hence she claimed refund of fees paid of Rs.7,500 with interest @18% p.a. reimbursement of Rs.60,000 loss suffered by her and she claimed interest @18% p.a. on total amount of Rs.1,21,500. Thus, she claimed award of Rs.1,89,000 besides Rs.5,00,000 as professional loss suffered by her.

3. Opponent filed written version and pleaded that the consumer complaint filed by the Complainant is false and frivolous. Complainant is not a Consumer. She pleaded that she accepted the brief of the Complainant on 23.1.2006. On that day initial introduction of the dispute was made by Complainant to her. Complainant then brought some documents on 25.1.2006. After examination of the documents she found that claim of the Complainant would be Rs.60,000. She pleaded that letter of appointment issued by the employer in her favour was three years old requiring explanation for condonation of delay. The delay was caused by the Complainant on her own. The Opponent further pleaded that Complainant wanted to scrutinize the complaint, hence, she took complaint with her on 30.1.2006. She was told that complaint could be filed on or before 4.2.2006 in the morning. Hence, complaint was filed on the very same day. The limitation provided to file complaint is three months. The cause of action to file such complaint arose on 7.10.2002. She cited several judgments in support of condonation of delay application, but, the Tribunal was pleaded to hold that delay was not properly explained by sufficient cause and dismissed condonation of delay application. The complainant therefore preferred review application and the review application also came to be dismissed. She pleaded that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opponent and complaint should be dismissed with cost.

4. The District Forum considered the Affidavit and documents placed on record and held that Complainant had proved deficiency in service on the opponent Advocate and was pleased to grant refund of Rs.3,750 plus Rs.10,000 as compensation by way of mental torture and professional loss and also cost of Rs.1,000. Aggrieved by this order, original Complainant has filed Appeal No.163/2008 and original Opponent has filed Appeal No.09/2008.

5. We heard submissions of Advocate Ms. Vandita Trivide, original Opponent in both the appeals and Complaina