The Hindu : Tamil Nadu News : Panel directs lawyer to return Rs. 3.89 lakhs to bank

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Tuesday, Jan 04, 2005

Tamil Nadu

Tamil Nadu

Panel directs lawyer to return Rs. 3.89 lakhs to bank

By Our Special Correspondent

CHENNAI, JAN. 3. Holding there was a deficiency in the service provided by a city advocate, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed him to return Rs. 3.89 lakhs to a nationalised bank with 12 per cent interest.

Allowing the bank's complaint against the advocate, the Commission also directed him to pay costs of Rs.2,500. The State Bank of India, Anna Salai branch, told the Commission that it had engaged the services of R. Mangaimannan, an advocate of George Town, to file a suit before the Sub-Court, Poonamallee, against a debtor. In August 1992, the advocate submitted an invoice for about Rs.7.93 lakhs, which included the court fee of Rs.7.89 lakhs. The amount was paid to him and he had issued a receipt. The lawyer assured the bank that he was pursuing the matter.

After four years, the case, which had not been numbered, was transferred to the newly constituted Debts Recovery Tribunal. The bank came to know of this in September 1998 and also found out that only a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs had been paid by the advocate towards court fee before the sub-court. It was for this reason that the suit was not numbered. As the court fee before the tribunal was only Rs.1.50 lakhs, the advocate got the suit numbered by showing that a court fee of Rs. 4 lakhs had been paid.

Following a letter from the bank, the advocate agreed to refund Rs. 3.89 lakhs with 18 per cent interest. But he failed to do so.

The advocate did not contest the case and did not turn up for the hearing. Hence, the order was given ex parte.

In its order, the Commission Bench, comprising Justice A. Raman, president and R. Vanaroja, member, said records showed that after filing the suit with a deficit court fee of Rs. 4 lakhs, the advocate had done nothing. Only after the matter was transferred to the tribunal did the bank come to know what had happened. Thus, there was a clear deficiency in service. The advocate failed to render the service though he received the fees, the Bench said.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Tamil Nadu