NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

                                                NEW DELHI

 

REVISION   PETITION   NO.  962  OF  2002

(From the order dated  8.2.2002 in  FA No.30/2002   of the

State Commission  Andhra Pradesh)

 

P. Krishna Rao & Anr.                                                             …               Petitioners

     Vs.

Mandipalli Devaiah                                                       …               Respondent

 

 

BEFORE:

                        HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE D.P. WADHWA,

                                                                        PRESIDENT

                        HON’BL MR. JUSTICE J.K. MEHRA, MEMBER.

                        MRS. RAJYALAKSHMI RAO, MEMBER

MR.  B.K. TAIMNI, MEMBER.

 

Lawyer  -   Improper drafting of plaint -  Held- Deficiency in service

 

 

 

For the petitioner                      :  Mr. R. Santhana Krishnan, Advocate

                                                                        O R D E R

 

DATED THE   10th    July,   2002.

 

 

JUSTICE D.P. WADHWA, J.(PRESIDENT).

 

                        Petitioners are the practicing lawyers.   A complaint was filed by the respondent-complainant complaining deficiency in service.   It was submitted by the complainant that  he had paid fees to  the petitioners but they failed in their duty in properly drafting the  plaint   in a suit filed by the complainant.   In the  plaint drafted by the petitioners, they had  taken extremely inconsistent stand.   This in fact is  admitted.  That being so,  it would certainly amount to deficiency in service.  The deficiency in a particular one case  certainly not mean a reflection on the petitioners for all cases handled and being handled by  them.  District Forum allowed the complaint and directed refund of the fees paid by the respondent  with damages of  Rs.1,000/- and cost of   Rs.300/-.  State

2

Commission on appeal  filed by the petitioners upheld the order of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal.  

                        We do not find it is a fit case  for us to exercise our jurisdiction under clause  (b) of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.   This revision petition is dismissed.    

            ……………………………………J

(D.P. WADHWA)

                      PRESIDENT

 

                                                                                    ……………………………………J

(J.K. MEHRA)

            MEMBER

 

 

                     ……………………………………….

(RAJYALAKSHMI RAO)

     MEMBER

 

 

                 ……………………………………….

(B.K. TAIMNI)

     MEMBER