Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

A district consumer forum at Bandra, Mumbai recently dismissed the complaint filed against an advocate namely Taubon Irani (Opponent) by one Kesari Divehca (complainant). The complainant was seeking a refund of the legal fees of the case that was filed before the Bombay High Court.

A bench of members of Shraddha M. Jalanapurkar and Preethi Chamikutty while dealing with the complaint observed that the complaint alleging unfair trade practice seemed to have been filed due to a lack of understanding of legal procedures.

“It appears the Complainant was under the impression that he has hired O.P. for life by paying the said fees, and she would continue handling his Appeal until he gets a favourable outcome/order in his favour. In our opinion this complaint is before us due to the Complainant’s non-understanding of legal procedures, more so the rigmarole of BHC, and he has a certain sense of entitlement for the money paid by him despite the efforts taken by O.P., which in our opinion does not constitute deficiency of service or unfair trade practice,” the members observed.

Background:

The complainant had hired Irani by signing a Vakalatnama for the purpose of prosecuting his appeal against his estranged wife in connection with the custody of his children in the High Court of Bombay. The complainant had provided the money through a cheque, which Irani received on August 19, 2009.

The complainant informed the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission that Irani represented him in court proceedings between August 2009 and March 2012. Further, it was stated that Irani vide email dated October,16,2011 discontinued her services for which she was paid professional charges of Rs.50,000 for appeal + for 2 Notices of Motion + Rs.15,000 for additional Notice of Motion (re. Passports).

He also claimed that it was an unfair business practice by her to discontinue her services after the restoration of appeal on March 07, 2012, which was dismissed a year earlier on March 08, 2011, due to Irani’s own negligence.

Further, in the complaint, it was stated that Irani charged Rs 65,000 to file an appeal and two applications, which were rejected due to some negligence by the lawyer. Thus the complainant demanded a refund of the amount paid.

Irani clearly denied the complainant's allegations. She added that she had argued the appeal before a division bench of the high court for over an hour in February 2010. The division bench then directed the complainant's children to be produced before the court so that they could be interviewed. He apparently refused to comply with the order, following which the bench held the hearing invalid and did not pass any order.

Irani also claimed that the complainant used to harass her continuously through emails and calls. Also, due to some technical reasons, his name did not appear in the record of appeal, which was rejected. But Irani finally restored it.

Irani explained that due to non-payment of her fees, and being fed up with the party's general misconduct through her communications; she decided to stop her services to him.

Observations:

The bench stated that there had been some bad blood between Complainant and the Opposite party due to the matter before the High Court, which resulted in Irani feeling insulted and she made the decision to not continue as Advocate for Complainant in BHC.

Accordingly, the Consumer forum observed that the conduct of the advocate was not unfair.

The bench dismissed the complaint.

Case Title: Kersi Divecha vs. Taubon Irani