G. JAMBUNATHAN vs S. VELUMUTHU

AFTER hearing the learned Advocates appearing for the appellant and Respondent No. 2, we have unhesitatingly come to the conclusion that there is absolutely no merit in this appeal.

THIS is an unfortunate instance where the 2nd Respondent Styling himself as "The Executive Trustee, Legal Aid Cell, 25, Krishna Street, T. Nagar, Madras -17" has been unscrupulously exploiting the fair name and reputation of the Official Legal Aid Organisation by making it appear that his is the duly constituted "Legal Aid Cell" and thereby exploiting gullible litigants by extracting huge amounts by way of "fees" from them. The appellant herein who must have been fully aware of the bogus character of the so called "Legal Aid Cell" acted as an Advocate engaged by the said Organisation which was masquerading as a unit of the Official Legal Aid Organisation. The 2nd Respondent had published an advertisement in the "Hindu" under the name "Legal Aid Cell" announcing that he is rendering free legal consultancy service to the persons wanted to recover money from any source. The Complainant who is the Correspondent of an aided school and who had to get substantial amounts from the State Government''s Education department as arrears of maintenance grant, was lured by the said advertisement and he approached the 1st Respondent for legal assistance to recover the amount from the Department. The appellant herein (2nd Respondent before the State Commission) who was functioning as the Advocate of the bogus organisation undertook to file the suit in the City Civil Court, Madras on behalf of the 1st Respondent. A sum of Rs, 7,500/- was demanded from the Complainant for fees and expenses for instituting the suit. The Complainant paid the said amount and he was thereafter informed by the appellant that the suit had been filed in the City Civil Court, Madras. Since no progress was being made in the matter even after the lapse of considerable amount of time, the Complainant became worried and he made inquiries throught other agencies about the stage of the suit, the number of which had been furnished to him as OS 7023 of 1992. It was then discovered by the Complainant that instead of filing a suit against the Department for recovery of the sum of Rs. 35,000/- as had been promised what had been actually done by the appellant was merely to file a suit against some of the officials of the Department in their personal capacity praying for a mere declaration against them. The Department had not been even impleaded in the said suit and no prior notice under Section 80 C.P.C. had been issued which was mandatory. Having received Rs. 7,500/- ostensibly for payment ad valorem Court fee on the valuation of Rs. 35,000/-, the appellant had instituted a worthless plaint seeking a mere declaration against some individual officials after paying a Court of Rs. 30.50. Appalled by this discovery, the 1st respondent approached the State Commission, Madras, by filing a complaint seeking to recover from the Appellant and 2nd Respondent the sum of Rs. 7,500/- paid by him, together with compensation for the inconvenience, loss and mental anguish etc. caused to him.

It was alleged in the complaint that the appellant herein and the 2nd Respondent herein who was the 1st Opposite Party before the State Commission were colluding together and running a racket in the name of ''Free Legal Aid'' and extracting money from various persons. The State Commission found that this allegation made in the complainant was fully substantiated by the affidavit of the complainant and that it was not even effectively denied in the counter filed by the Opposite Parties. The State Commission went on to observe as follows: "The 1st Opposite Party ''Legal Aid Cell'' appears to be a devise to cheat unwary litigants and squeeze money from them. The 2nd Opposite Party, who is a member of ''Legal Aid Cell'' is deeply associated with the 1st Opposite Party in this game of extracting money from innocent persons. The Honourable Legal profession is prostituted by the Opposite Parties and this practice must be put down with a stern hand." Mr. Manoj Swarup who appeared on behalf of the appellant vehemently contended before us that the aforesaid observations made against the ''Logal Aid Cell'' were wholly unwarranted. We do not find it possible to accede to this plea because the observations are made against the attempt of bogus organisation which was masquerading itself as ''Legal Aid Cell'' with intent to create a wrong impression in the public mind that it was a unit of the Official Legal Aid machinery and thereby attempting to tarnish the fair name of the Official Legal" Aid Organisation which has gained the confidence and respect of the public by its excellent work in service of poor litigants. We have to condemn in the strongest terms the unscrupulous attempts made by the appellant and the 2nd Respondent to misuse and exploit the name of the genuine Legal Aid Organisation for furthering their own selfish ends for exploitation of the gullible sections of the public. Hence, we see no reason to interfere with the directions issued by the State Commission that the 2nd Respondent herein should refund the sum of Rs. 7,500/- taken from the Complainant and that the appellant and the 2nd Respondent should jointly pay to the Complainant a compensation of Rs. 25,000/-. In the light of the foregoing discussion we confirm the order of the State Commission and dismiss this appeal. The appellant will pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- by way of costs to the 1st Respondent. Appeal dismissed.