Mrs. Aruna M.Pai vs K.Keshava Bhat

The complainant is the wife of a senior advocate, who staked a claim alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party regarding the filing of a suit preceded by the issuance of a legal notice. Her allegation is that the opposite party, who is an advocate and who was entrusted with the job of preparing a notice defaulted, as a result whereof an inordinate delay in the service of a notice occurred, which in turn resulted in the legal claim of the complainant being barred by limitation.

The opposite party denied this claim and ultimately the State Consumer Commission also vide Order dated 25.10.2004 arrived at the conclusion that there was no deficiency in service and no positive evidence had been adduced to establish that he had entrusted the case to the opposite party for issuing notice for the purpose of filing a suit on her behalf against one Mr. Mohan Ameen. The defence which had been taken by the opposite party was that he was never engaged to do so, and it was his son to whom this work had been entrusted, and that his son had prepared the draft notice but the complainant did not turn up and she came after a week whereafter the draft notice was corrected and was sent on 09.09.1998, which was received by Mr. Mohan Ameen on 12.09.1998.

The State Commission also came to the conclusion that when the husband of the complainant was a senior advocate and the matter had been negotiated at his instance there was absolutely no reason as to why the husband himself could not have taken care of this instead of laying a blame on someone else.

The complaint was filed in the year 2000 and was decided by the State Commission in 2004. This appeal was instituted in 2005. More than 23 years have passed by and in this case an amicus curiae had been appointed vide Order dated 30.05.2006 as the appellant had sent a letter on 27.05.2006 praying that the appeal may be decided after looking into her submissions.

It appears that the Commission on its own appointed one Ms. Sonia Sharma on payment of Rs. 2500/- as amicus curiae. The appeal thereafter remained pending and in 2010 it was brought to the notice of the Commission that the issue of the services of a lawyer being questioned on the ground of deficiency was pending adjudication before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the complaint ought to be adjourned and it was accordingly adjourned sine die vide Order dated 30.3.2010.

Learned amicus curiae is not available in India and Ms. Pooja Arora, learned advocate appeared and informed the bench that Ms. Sonia Sharma will not be able to attend this matter as she is abroad. A written request for adjournment was moved by one Ms. Purva Chugh. On the date fixed Ms. Pooja Arora, learned Advocate appeared stating that she should be permitted to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae in place of Ms. Sonia Sharma.

The dispute with regard to the lawyer’s service being amenable to the jurisdiction of the consumer forum is still reported to have not been finally disposed of by the Apex Court but in the present case it is not the appellant who has made any request and rather the amicus curiae who has gone abroad, a request is being made on her behalf.

To us, it appears that the appellant may even not be aware of these developments. The legal issue which is stated to be pending before the Supreme Court is in the case of Bar of Indian Lawyers through its President Jasbir Singh Malik vs. D. K. Gandhi. According to the Ordersheet dated 10.08.2023 the petitions have been directed to be listed in the second week of October 2023. Nonetheless the appellant has not come forward to pursue the appeal and no useful purpose would be served by keeping this matter pending.

We, therefore, consign this appeal to records without prejudice to the rights of the appellant to seek revival of it in the event it is necessitated upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case referred to hereinabove.