News Date: 11 Apr, 2023, 8:28 am IST
Mumbai: A district consumer forum in Mumbai recently dismissed a complaint filed by an individual against a lawyer seeking refund of legal fees in a case before the Bombay High Court [Kersi Divecha v. Taubon Irani].
A coram of members Preethi Chamikutty and Shraddha Jalanapurkar observed that the complaint alleging unfair trade practice seemed to have been filed because there was no understanding of legal procedures, especially those of the High Court.
“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 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,” the 15-page order stated.
The complainant had engaged a lawyer, Taubon Irani, in 2009 for proceedings against his estranged wife regarding the custody of his children.
He informed the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission that Irani represented him in court proceedings between August 2009 to March 2012. However, Irani discontinued her services, unhappy with his conduct.
The complaint stated that Irani charged ₹65,000 for filing an appeal and two applications, which were dismissed due to some negligence by the lawyer. The complainant thus sought refund of the amount paid.
Irani refuted the allegations, and pointed out that she had argued the appeal before a division bench of the High Court in February 2010 for over an hour. The Bench had then asked that the complainant’s children be produced in court, so that they could be interviewed. He supposedly refused to comply with the order, after which the bench treated the hearing as null and void and did not pass any order.
Irani also claimed that the complainant constantly hounded her with emails and calls. Simultaneously, due to some technical reasons, her name did not reflect on record of the appeal, which was dismissed. But Irani eventually got it restored.
Irani pointed out that due to non-payment of her fees, and tired of the general misconduct of the client through his communication, she decided to discontinue her services to him.
The commission deduced from evidence that the lawyer’s conduct did not amount to deficiency of service or unfair trade practice and dismissed the complaint.
