Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/14175/2010 2/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 14175 of 2010
=========================================================
KANUBHAI
SHANABHAI GOHIL - Petitioner(s)
Versus
SHANTILAL
SHANABHAI PRAJAPATI & 5 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
PARTY-IN-PERSON
for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2,4 -
6.
NOTICE NOT RECD BACK for Respondent(s) : 3,
MR GC MAZMUDAR
for Respondent(s) : 6,
MR HG MAZMUDAR for Respondent(s) :
6,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 10/12/2010
ORAL
ORDER
Petitioner
is a professional advocate. He has challenged an order dated
31.5.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in MACP
No.1270/93 in so far as the Tribunal awarded lawyers fee at
Rs.1798/- to him.
The
petitioner was representing the claimants, respondent Nos.1 to 3
herein in the said MACP. It is his case that they had agreed to pay
Rs.1 lac upon completion of proceedings. It is his further case that
he worked without any remuneration for some time. Dispute arose
between the claimants and the advocate. The claimants, therefore,
asked for return of the brief and no objection. The petitioner
resisted such attempt. Issue ultimately reached the High Court.
Learned Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application
No.14020 of 2008, filed by the claimants summoned the petitioner as
respondent. The petitioner apologized to the Court and gave an
undertaking that no objection will be granted. Despite such apology
and assurance to the Court, the petitioner carried the said order
in appeal by filing Letters Patent Appeal No.2323 of 2009. The
said LPA came to be dismissed on 3rd December 2009.
Once
again, the petitioner has raised an ugly issue of unpaid fees by the
claimants. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the order passed
by the High Court, the petitioner gave no objection to another
advocate to represent the claimants in MACP. In MACP, award of
Rs.3,24,000/- came to be passed. In the award, the Claims Tribunal
granted only the scheduled fee to the petitioner. He has,
therefore, filed this petition claiming unpaid remuneration of
Rs.50,000/- from the claimants.
It
is unfortunate that an advocate has come to the Court seeking huge
amount towards the fees from the claimants of a motor accident.
There is nothing on record to suggest that the claimants had
agreed to pay Rs.1 lac towards lawyer,s fees on the claim being
ultimately allowed. In absence of any such document or evidence
the case of the petitioner simply cannot be believed on his oral say.
Even otherwise, the petitioner’s demand of Rs.1 lac from heirs of a
person who died in the accident from out the claim amount is simply
abhorrent. Such advocates remind me one of the expressions
ambulance chasers . I leave the issue at that.
Counsel
for the claimants, however, submitted that admittedly the petitioner
has not been paid his fees so far. He did look after matter till
the stage it came up for hearing. Counsel for the claimants at the
request of the Court agreed to pay Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen
thousand) towards full and final professional fees of the
petitioner.
Under
the circumstances, though the petitioner’s prayer made in this
petition is not granted, the claimants shall as stated by their
counsel pay Rs.15,000/- towards petitioner’s fees through account
payee cheque within eight weeks from today. The petition is disposed
of accordingly.
(Akil
Kureshi, J.)
(vjn)
Top