JUDGMENT DESHMUKH S.G., JUDICIAL MEMBER: The present Appeal is filed by the original complainant against the judgment and order dated 22-9-2000 in a Complaint Case No. 117/2000 passed by District Consumer Forum, Jalgaon. 2. The respondent/complainant's case before the Forum is that, the complainant is Chairman of Adarsh Sahkari Gruh Nirman Sanstha, Chalisgaon. The society filed the Arbitration Suit bearing No. 235/2006 for the recovery of Rs. 1.42.7541- in Co-operative Court Jalgaon. It is contended that, the opponent was engaged as an Advocate on behalf of Adarsh Sahakari Gruh Nirman Sanstha. It is contended that, the opponent was paid the amount of Rs. 3,000/- towards his fees as a Advocate. He was also paid the amount of Rs. 900/- towards traveling expenses and daily allowance. It is contended that, the opponent who was also the Chairman of the society at the relevant period did not attend arbitration case before the Co-operative Court Jalgaon. It is contended that, the Co-operative Court, Jalgaon dismissed the Arbitration Suit bearing No. 235/96, vide Order dated 17-4-1998. It is contended that, even after dismissal of the suit the opponent did not inform this fact to the society for about 1 and half years. The Society suffered the loss, and thus, the society gave notice dated 30-12-99 by RPAD to the opponent. The opponent did not accept the notice, and thus the society approached the Forum for recovery of Rs.1,42,754/- and also Rs.50, 000/- towards compensation. 3. The opponent appeared before the Forum and resisted the complaint. It is contended that, the complaint is false and it is filed with malafied intention. It is contended that, the opponent had filed two suits for the recovery of amount against the Pitambar Patil when the opponent was Chairman of the Cooperative society, and thus he filed the false complaint against him. It is also contended that, as per by-laws the chairman alone is not entitle to take the decision of the society. It is contended that, no evidence is adduced against him. It is further contended that, Advocate Pramod Patil was appointed as an Advocate in the case in question. The opponent was to assist him for required information and the documents. It is also contended that, the opponent did not receive any sort of Advocate fees. 4. The Forum below after going through the papers and hearing the parties dismissed the complaint. The opponent was to assist him for required information and the documents. It is also contended that, the opponent did not receive any sort of Advocate fees. 4. The Forum below after going through the papers and hearing the parties dismissed the complaint. Forum observed that, Advocate Pramod Patil is not made party to the complaint and thus, the complaint is barred for non-joinder of necessary party. It is also observed that, no evidence has been adduced by the society to prove the deficiency on the part of opponent. It is further observed that, there was no resolution of Board of Directors for filing the complaint. 5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order the Chairman of Adarsh Sahakari Gruh Nirman Sanstha came in Appeal. 6. Notices were issued to the appellant as well as respondent. The learned Counsel Shri S.P. Adgaonkar appeared on behalf of appellant. None appeared on behalf of respondent complainant. We heard the learned Counsel. We perused the papers on record. 7. On perusal of paper it reveals that, the Adarsh Sahakari Gruh Nirman Sanstha had filed the recovery suit against the Bhagtsing Narsing Pawar in Co-operative Court, Jalgaon on 8-10-96. It also reveals that, the opponent was appointed as an Advocate on behalf of the society in the suit. The appellant , brought on record the receipts of the amount received by the opponents towards the traveling expenses and daily allowance total amounting to Rs. 900/-. The appellant also brought on record two receipts each of Rs. 1500/- signed by the present opponent for acknowledging the amount towards Advocate fees. The appellant also brought on record - the copy of resolution dated 22-12-99 passed in executive committee of the society for taking action against the opponent who did not give his service for conducting the suit in question. The appellant also brought on record the copy of the arbitration suit bearing No. 235/96 filed against Bhagatsing Pawar for recovery of the amount. The suit has been disposed of the Co-operative Court, - vide its order dated 17-4-1998. The order of the Co-operative Court reads as follows: "The present dispute is filed on 8-10-96. Court issued summons to the opponents on 13-12-96 R/ o. 7-1-98. But it is not on record whether opponent served or not. As no acknowledgment is received by the Court. The order of the Co-operative Court reads as follows: "The present dispute is filed on 8-10-96. Court issued summons to the opponents on 13-12-96 R/ o. 7-1-98. But it is not on record whether opponent served or not. As no acknowledgment is received by the Court. Neither the defendant nor his Advocate after filing of the present dispute attended the Court, and made any enquiries about the service of the summons to opponent nor shown any interest for further compliance if any in respect of service to the opponent. Since filing of the present dispute as stated above till today Dispt. and Advocate absent without application. Hence it seems that Dispt, has no interest. Accordingly, dispute is disposed of. 8. It is apparent from the above that the appellant society had appointed the respondent as an Advocate in the recovery Suit bearing No. 235/96, filed before the Co-operative Court. It is also apparent that, the respondent had received the amount of Rs.3,000/- towards the Advocates fee for conducting the matter before Co-operative Court. Not only that but he had also received the traveling expenses as well as daily allowance. It is apparent from the copy of Roznama in the suit that, the respondent never appeared before the Co-operative Court for conducting the matter. The order of the Co-operative Court also shows that, disputant Advocate did not shows any interest in conducting the matter in question. It is certain that, though the respondent had accepted Advocate fees for conducting matter before Co-operative Court, did not appear before Court and conduct the matter. It was imcumbent on the respondent to appear on behalf of appellant before the Co-operative Court and to conduct the case properly. Though the respondent accepted the traveling expenses and daily allowances for attending the Court, he did not attend the Court. The matter was dismissed by the Co-operative Court. It has also come on record that, the did not inform the appellant about the dismissal of the suit for period about and half years. 9. The forum below did not consider all these facts and erred in holding that; the complaint is barred by non-joinder of necessary parties. No document has been produced by the respondent to show that Advocate Pramod Patil was appointed as an Advocate on behalf of appellant and he was to ( assist him. 9. The forum below did not consider all these facts and erred in holding that; the complaint is barred by non-joinder of necessary parties. No document has been produced by the respondent to show that Advocate Pramod Patil was appointed as an Advocate on behalf of appellant and he was to ( assist him. The evidence brought on record shows that, the respondent was appointed s as an Advocate for conducting the suit before Co-operative Court. He had filed his V.P. before the Co-operative Court on accepting the fees but did not work and appear before the Court on behalf of appellant society. There is clear-cut deficiency in the service of the respondent. The respondent acted in gross negligence. The Forum below erred in holding that, there is no evidence to show the deficiency on the part of opponent. There is deficiency on the part of respondent. 10. The appellant prayed for the amount of Rs. 1,42,754/- including the amount in the recovery suit, and also the compensation of Rs. 50,000/ -. In our view, the amount demanded by the appellant is exorbitant. In our view the proper amount of the compensation for the deficiency in service will be Rs.10,000/-. We are inclined to allow the appeal. We pass the following order. ORDER 1. Appeal is allowed. 2. The impugned order passed by Dist. Consumer Forum, Jalgaon is hereby quashed and set aside. 3. The respondent is directed to pay Rs. 10,000/ - towards the compensation to the appellant with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint. . 4. The respondent is to pay the amount of Rs.2000/- towards the cost. 5. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties. Appeal allowed.