IMPORTANT POINT
Consumer Protection fora are not meant to be a tool for creating ‘nuisance value’ or for indulging in vexatious harassment through frivolous complaints. False and frivolous complaint should be dismissed with appropriate costs.

Dinesh Singh, Member—Learned counsel for the revision petitioner – complainant – client and learned counsel for the respondent – opposite party – lawyer were heard. The material on record was perused.

2. On 14.02.2019, after hearing arguments of both sides and perusing the material on record, we passed the following Order:—

Dated: 14.2.2019

Order

Heard learned counsels for the revision petitioner and the respondent. Perused the material on record.

The revision petitions are dismissed.

The complaint is dismissed.

A cost of Rs.10,000/- each in both cases to be deposited with the Consumer Legal Aid Account of the District Forum within four weeks of the pronouncement of the reasoned judgment.

Reasoned judgment to follow.

We are giving our reasons hereinafter.

3. To adjudicate the matter on merit, and in the interest of justice, and to remedy an apparent material irregularity, the self-admitted delay of 22 days each in filing the two revision petitions was condoned.

4. The dispute is between one Bajee Govindan (complainant), a PWD contractor, and one P. Santhosh Kumar (advocate), a lawyer by profession. It relates to deficiency in service alleged against the lawyer by his client.

5. The relevant chronology, material to adjudicate this matter, is as below:—

(i) As averred by Bajee Govindan (complainant), O.S. no. 92 / 2000, filed before the Munsif’s Court, Thiruvanantha-puram, in which he was arrayed as the defendant, and one P. Santhosh Kumar (advocate) was his lawyer, was dismissed (in his favour). The appeal A.S. no. 70 / 2004, filed before the Additional Sub Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, arising from the judgment in O.S. no. 92 / 2000, in which P. Santhosh Kumar (advocate) was again his lawyer, was allowed ex parte on 12.12.2007 against the complainant. P. Santhosh Kumar (advocate), his lawyer, did not appear before the court on 28.10.2006 and he was hence proceeded against ex parte. P. Santhosh Kumar (advocate), his lawyer, failed to inform the outcome of his case to the complainant and did not take any corrective steps as per the law to get the ex parte order dated 12.12.2007 recalled.

In another case, the complainant again engaged P. Santhosh Kumar (advocate) as his lawyer to file a criminal complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against one P.S. Santhosh Kumar as a cheque of Rs. 4,05,050/- issued by the said P.S. Santhosh Kumar in his favour was returned by the bank unpaid. The case was registered as C.C. no. 1149 / 2007 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram. It was dismissed in default for non-appearance of the lawyer on 15.02.2008. P. Santhosh Kumar (advocate), his lawyer, failed to inform the outcome of his case to the complainant and did not take any corrective steps as per the law to get the case restored.

(ii) The complainant alleged that the dismissal in default of C.C. no. 1149 / 2007 and the ex parte order in A.S. no. 70 / 2004 were inter alia due to “intentional professional misconduct” and “intentional dereliction of duty” on the part of the advocate.

(iii) The complainant filed a complaint before the Bar Council of Kerala alleging “intentional professional misconduct” on the part of the advocate:—

The averments in the complaint are as follows: The complainant had engaged the respondent to file Criminal Complaint against one Mr. P.S. Santhosh Kumar under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. The complaint was filed before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Trivandrum and numbered as C.C. 1149/2007. Though the case was posted several times it was dismissed due to the non appearance of the respondent on 15-2-2008. The complainant was regularly attending the case and give fees to the respondent. At the time of filing of the case Rs. 10,000/- was given as fees and for every posting date of Rs. 250/- was given to the respondent. Though the case was dismissed on 15-2-2008 the respondent did not intimate the same to the complainant.