Dear Client,
Your situation requires action on two fronts:
- Seeking a refund for services not rendered.
- Complaining about professional misconduct.
You have strong evidence (payment proof, court order showing non-appearance), which is a significant advantage.
There are primarily two main avenues for redressal:
1. Complaint to the State Bar Council (Karnataka State Bar Council):
This is the primary body responsible for regulating the conduct of advocates and addressing professional misconduct.
- Grounds for Complaint:
- Professional Negligence: Not appearing in court, leading to an ex-parte order, is a clear case of professional negligence.
- Breach of Duty to Client: An advocate has a duty to diligently pursue the client's case.
- Unethical Demands: Demanding additional money after failing to perform their duties (especially leading to an ex-parte order) can also be considered unethical conduct.
2. Civil Suit for Recovery of Money (Breach of Contract/Negligence):
You can also file a civil suit in a civil court for the recovery of the fees paid due to the firm's negligence and breach of contract.
- Grounds: You paid for a service that was not adequately provided, leading to financial loss (the Rs. 4 lakhs, potentially the cost of fighting the ex-parte order later, etc.).
- Jurisdiction: You would file this suit in the Civil Court in Bangalore (where the law firm is located and the services were supposed to be rendered).
- Relief: You would seek the refund of the Rs. 4 lakhs (and possibly other damages incurred due to their negligence).
- Procedure: This is a full-fledged civil suit, which involves court fees (ad valorem, based on the amount you claim), serving summons, filing pleadings, evidence, and arguments.
Can you do it yourself? Yes, you can represent yourself ("Party in Person"). However, civil suits are complex, which involves legal nuances, drafting of plaints, cross-examination, etc. This is where having legal counsel can be beneficial, but it's your right to proceed alone.
Important Note on Consumer Court:
In the case of Bar of Indian Lawyers v. D. K. Gandhi PS National Institute of Communicable Diseases 2024 SCC OnLine SC 928 the Apex Court held that, a considerable amount of direct control is exercised by the Client over how an Advocate renders his services during his employment. Thus, the services hired or availed of an Advocate would be that of a contract ‘of personal service’ and would therefore stand excluded from the definition of “service” contained in Section 2(42) of the CP Act, 2019. Therefore, a complaint alleging “deficiency in service” against Advocates practising Legal Profession would not be maintainable under the CP Act, 2019.
I hope this answer helps. In case of future queries, please feel free to contact us. Thank you.