Mumbai consumer forum dismisses complaint against lawyer for fees refund
Mumbai consumer forum dismisses complaint against lawyer for fees refund
The complainant had engaged the advocate for proceedings in the Bombay High court against his estranged wife in a custody battle for his children
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Mumbai has dismissed a complaint filed by an individual, Kersi Divecha against his lawyer, Taubon Irani whose services he had engaged for proceedings in the Bombay High court against his estranged wife in a custody battle for his children. He sought a refund of the legal fees he had paid to his lawyer for appearing in the High Court.
The Coram of members Preethi Chamikutty and Shraddha Jalanapurkar observed that the complaint alleging unfair trade practice seemed to have been filed due to a lack of understanding of legal procedures, especially the High Court.
In the 15-page order, the Commission stated, “It appears the complainant was under the impression that he has hired the lawyer for life by paying the fees, and the lawyer would continue handling the appeal until the complainant 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 the Bombay High Court; and he has a certain sense of entitlement for the money paid by him despite the efforts taken by the lawyer, which in our opinion does not constitute deficiency of service or unfair trade practice,”
Divecha informed the Commission that Irani represented him in Court proceedings between August 2009 to March 2012. However, unhappy with her conduct, he discontinued her services. He stated that Irani charged Rs.65,000 for filing an appeal and two applications, which were dismissed due to her negligence. The complainant thus sought refund of the amount paid.
On the other hand, Irani refuted the allegations stating that she had argued the appeal before a division bench of the High Court in February 2010 for over an hour. The bench had asked the complainant's children to be produced in the court so that they could be interviewed. But her client refused to comply with the order, after which the bench treated the hearing as null and void and did not pass any order.
Irani further claimed that the complainant constantly hounded her with emails and calls. Also, due to some technical issue, her name did not reflect on the record of the appeal, which was dismissed. But eventually, she got it restored. She pointed out that due to non-payment of her fees, and tired of the client’s general misconduct through his communication, she decided to discontinue her services to him.
From the evidence and arguments, the Commission observed that the lawyer’s conduct did not amount to deficiency of service or unfair trade practice and the complaint was dismissed.
