Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 3841 (MAD)

M. Dhilipkumar v. R. Govindaraj & Another

2009-09-17

S.PALANIVELU

body2009
Judgment :- 1. The petitioner is claimant in M.C.O.P.No.1580 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, First Additional District Court, Dharmapurai at Krishnagiri. On 210. 2004, an award was passed directing the second respondent in the M.C.O.P. to pay a sum of Rs.2,25,920/- with interest. An appeal was preferred before this Court in C.M.A.No.1827 of 2006 in which then parties to the Claim Petition entered into a compromise and a compromise decree was passed by this Court on 27. 2006 modifying the award to Rs.1,85,000/- with interest @ 7.5%. In pursuance to the said decree, a sum of Rs.2,05,624/- was deposited before the Tribunal. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that he engaged the first respondent, a practicing lawyer in Krishnagiri to conduct the case and he had agreed to pay 10% in the award amount as fees and expenses to him and presently he is claiming 20% towards his fees and other expenses and that it is not sustainable. He also preferred a Complaint before the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu on 21. 2008. The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu after enquiry has passed resolution No.48 of 2008 dated 24. 2008 stating that the complainant has not made out prima facie case of professional misconduct against the respondent and hence it has dropped the Complaint. 3. The first respondent filed two Applications before the Tribunal. One is I.A.No.347 of 2009 under Section 151, C.P.C. for staying issuance of cheque for Rs.2,06,524/-. The other Petition in I.A.No.441 of 2009 was filed by him under Order 3, Rule 4 read with Section 151, C.P.C. to cancel the vakalat given to the petitioner. 4. Thelearned counsel for the petitioner Mr. P. Valliappan would submit that the petitioner had agreed to pay only 10% in the award and conversely the first respondent has claimed 20% and in this regard the order challenged before this Court is not sustainable. It is his further argument that for payment of 10% towards fees and expenses, there is no need to stay the issuance of the cheque for the entire award amount. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent Mr. S.S. Swaminathan would submit that the Complaint given by the petitioner would show that the agreed to pay 20% of the award amount which is evident from the copy of the resolution received from the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent Mr. S.S. Swaminathan would submit that the Complaint given by the petitioner would show that the agreed to pay 20% of the award amount which is evident from the copy of the resolution received from the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu. The Xerox copy of the Complaint and Resolution has been produced by the respondent in which it is stated that as if the petitioner had agreed to pay 20% in the award amount. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner produced a copy of the Complaint certified by the Secretary of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu in which this petitioner has stated that he agreed to pay 10% alone. Hence, mentioning in the copy of the Complaint and Resolution stated to have been given by the Bar Council that the petitioner agreed for 20% is not correct. The contention had considerable force. 6. It is evident from the records that the petitioner has agreed to pay 10% of the award amount to the respondent as fees and expenses. In the absence of consent of the petitioner, this Court could not order any more. The petitioner does not accord his consent to pay more than 10% and hence it is decided that the first respondent is entitled for 10% from the award. It is stated that as mentioned in the award a sum of Rs.7,518/- has been paid to the first respondent. He is entitled for 10% in the award passed less Rs.7,518/-. 7. With the above said observation, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs.