A district consumer forum in Mumbai recently dismissed an individual’s complaint against a lawyer seeking reimbursement of legal fees in a case before the Bombay High Court.
A coram of members Preethi Chamikutty and Shraddha Jalanapurkar observed that the complaint alleging unfair trade practices appeared to have been filed due to a lack of understanding of legal procedures, particularly 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 order reads.
In 2009, the complainant hired a lawyer, Taubon Irani, to represent him in custody proceedings with his estranged wife.
Irani represented him in court proceedings from August 2009 to March 2012, he told the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. However, Irani terminated her services because she was dissatisfied with his behavior.
According to the complaint, Irani charged Rs 65,000 for filing an appeal and two applications, both of which were denied due to the lawyer’s negligence. As a result, the complainant requested a refund of the amount paid.
Advocate Irani denied the allegations, pointing out that she had argued the appeal for over an hour before a division bench of the High Court in February 2010.
The Bench then requested that the complainant’s children appear in court to be interviewed. He allegedly refused to comply with the order, so the bench declared the hearing null and void and issued no order.
The lawyer also claimed that the complainant bombarded her with emails and phone calls. Concurrently, for technical reasons, her name did not appear on the record of the appeal, which was dismissed. But Irani was eventually able to have it restored.
Advocate Irani stated that she decided to discontinue her services to him due to non-payment of her fees and growing tired of the client’s general misbehavior through his communication.
Based on the evidence, the commission concluded that the lawyer’s conduct did not constitute a deficiency of service or an unfair trade practice and dismissed the complaint.
