BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD.

F.A.No.240 OF 2020 AGAINST ORDERS IN C.C.380/2017 DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION-II, HYDERABAD.

Between:

Shri Dr.Yeshu Nanda, S/o Shri Joginder Singh Nanda, Aged about 56 years, Occ.: Business, R/o Flat No.204, Mithila Homes, Road No.3, Haripuri Colony, Saroornagar, R.R.District.

Rep. by his S.P.A. Holder, Shri Harsih Kumar Tandra, S/o Shri Prakash Rao, Tandra, Aged about 47 years, Occ.: Business, R/o Flat No.303, Silver Oke Apartments, Ganga Enclave, Kompally, Hyderabad.

Ranga Reddy District.

…….Appellant/Complainant And:

Sri Durga Charan Gehlot, Advocate, R.G. Associates, At 6-3-678/1/A, Durga Nagar Colony, Panjagutta, Hyderabad-530 082.

……..Respondent/Opposite Party Counsel for the Appellant/Complainant : M/s V.Gouri Sankara Rao.

Counsel for the Respondent/Opposite Party : Called absent.

QUORUM :

HON’BLE SMT. MEENA RAMANATHAN, I/c PRESIDENT &

HON’BLE SRI. V.V.SESHUBABU, MEMBER – (JUDICIAL)

TUESDAY, THE 3 0th DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND TWENTY FOUR **********

Order : (PER HON’BLE SRI. V.V.SESHUBABU, MEMBER – JUDICIAL)

1. The appeal is filed u/s 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, by the complainant, aggrieved by the dismissal order of District Consumer Commission-II, Hyderabad, dated 06.02.2020 in CC 380/2017.

2. The brief averments of the complaint are that the complainant is an Advocate and the complainant had approached him to file a case in Ranga Reddy District Court, at L.B.Nagar for probate of Will which was executed by the Complainant’s wife. The complainant has paid the professional fee of Rs.1,00,000/- through his friend’s bank account as he was not having Bank Account. Further it is submitted that the opposite party insisted to pay another Rs.1,00,000/- to him towards professional fee and the same was paid by the complainant on 01.11.2016. After furnishing the material papers, the opposite party has cheated the complainant by sending the papers of probate petition by endorsing some other counsel name for approval. Due to the attitude and behavior of the opposite party, the complainant entrusted the case for probate of Will to another Advocate. On 06.01.2017, the complainant sent a letter to the opposite party to refund the amount which was paid by him, but he has not done so. On 01.03.2017, a legal notice was issued to the opposite party demanding to refund the paid amount, but the said notice was returned with an endorsement “Unclaimed”. Hence, the complaint. 3. The brief averments of the written version of Opposite Party are that they have denied the allegations made in the complaint; that the complainant has suppressed the material facts. The SPA holder of the complainant is not an authorized person as per law to file the said CC. The complainant has taken all the legal services which were rendered with full dignity and honesty towards the profession. The complainant informed the opposite party that his mother-in-law and wife expired, leaving property in the form of jewellery, Bank balance, provident funds accounts, etc. The complainant instructed the opposite party to do the initial draft and promised to bear all the expenses drafting charges, filing charges etc. The same was done by this opposite party and sent the mails to the complainant; that the complainant kept altering his instructions through lengthy mails, telephonic discussions which extended upto an hour and that his assistant would always pursue the matter without following the instructions of the opposite party. The complainant caused the delay in sending the valuation certificate as it is necessary document to file a probate of Will petition; that there is latch on the part of the complainant by not providing all original documents to file the petition. It is further submitted that this opposite party has no knowledge about the legal notice sent by the complainant; that the complainant has approached the District Commission with unclean hands and filed the CC, therefore prayed the Commiss