Text

Bar of India Lawyers through its president Jasbir Singh Malik vs D.K. Gandhi PS National Institution of Communicable Diseases

Facts
D.K. Gadhi who is the Respondent in the present Appeal heired Appellant for legal service to file complaint against one person by name Kamal Sharma Under Section 138 of negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 for dishonour of cheque for an amount of Rs.20,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- as expenses in Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Delhi, and the said person agreed to pay the cheque amount, but the said amount was not reached to the respondent and the person gave the amount to the appellant and he considered the amount as his fee.
The respondent approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC) stating that advocates will also come under the services of Consumer protection and failure of the such services will be liable for compensation and the appellant raised an objection that District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter and the said District Forum decided in favour of Respondent.
Appellant approached the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) challenging the order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC) and State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) stated that lawyers will not come under services defined under Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the appeal was allowed.
Respondent approached the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) challenging the order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) and it stated that lawyers will also come under Services which was defined under Section 2(1)(o) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Issues:
Whether services rendered by an advocate, comes under the Consumer Protection Act, or not?
Whether services rendered by the professionals falls within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act?
Arguments:
Arguments by Appellant:
Appellants contented that lawyers are the officers of the court and they are bound to professional ethics.
Appellant contented that they will work independently and they represent the client and the outcome of the judgement depends of various factors.
Appellant contented that lawyers work with good faith and they perform their duty with diligently.
Appellant contented that practice of lawyer is a unique profession and the outcome is not predictable.
Appellant contented that relationship between lawyer and client is based on trust and it is different from consumer service provider relationships.
Arguments by Respondent:
Respondent contented that Advocates ate governed by Advocates Act, 1961 and the Bar Counsel of India Rules, which will take necessary legal action when misconduct was took place in the rendered services.
Respondent contended that clients are the consumers seeking legal services from Advocates and they should be protected from deficiencies and misconduct and also apply the Consumer Protection Act to professional services.
Respondent contented that Consumer Protection Act, provides accountability and when it was applied to the professional services, they will also be accountable for the misconduct in the service rendered.
Respondent contented that there is a precedent case where medical profession was made accountable to services rendered by it and the same has to be applied here.

Court Held:
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the relation between an Advocate and client is different and it totally based on trust where the service rendered by Advocate will not predict the outcome and the service will not come under the definition of Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act and the practise of lawyers is unique from other professions and the services which are rendered by professionals will not come under definition of Service of Consumer Protection Act.

Detail Information

Title

Bar of India Lawyers through its president Jasbir Singh Malik vs D.K. Gandhi PS National Institution of Communicable Diseases

Court

: supreme court., 2024

Lenght/Sections/Order/Rules

-

Language

English

Case Number/Citation

2646/2009

Matter(s)

-

Councels

For Appellant Advocate Jasbir Singh Malik, Advocate Chandini Sharma, Advocate Rajiv Kumar, Advocate Raju Sonkar, Advocate Varun Punia, Advocate Anjani Aiyagari and Advocate Mohinder Jit Singh. For Respondent Advocate Daya Krishan Sharma, Advocate Rohit Vats, Advocate D.K. Sharma, Advocate Sunitha Sharma, Advocate Yashdeep and Advocate N. Annapoorani.

Statement of Responsibility

Pavani Priya. Akula, Sri Padmavathi mahila Visvavidyalayam

See Also

File Attachment

Comments