The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2646 to 2649 OF 2009 dated May 14, 2024 in Bar of Indian Lawyers through its President Jasbir Singh Malik vs. D.K. Gandhi PS National Institute of Communicable Diseases and Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 2646 of 2009) held that a complaint alleging "deficiency in service" against Advocates practising Legal Profession would not be maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Facts of the Case:
The Petitioner, Mr. D.K. Gandhi, had hired the services of the Respondent, Mr. M. Mathias, an Advocate, for filing a complaint case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi against one Mr. Kamal Sharma. The case was regarding a dishonored cheque for Rs. 20,000 issued by Mr. Sharma in favor of Mr. Gandhi. During the proceedings, Mr. Sharma agreed to pay Rs. 20,000 for the dishonored cheque along with Rs. 5,000 as expenses to Mr. Gandhi.
The Respondent received a demand draft/pay order for Rs. 20,000 and a crossed cheque of Rs. 5,000 from Mr. Sharma on behalf of the Petitioner. However, the Respondent did not deliver these amounts to the Petitioner. Instead, the Respondent demanded Rs. 5,000 in cash from the Petitioner as his fees and also filed a suit in the Small Causes Court for recovery of the same.
Later, the Respondent gave the demand draft/pay order and cheque to the Petitioner, but the payment of the Rs. 5,000 cheque was stopped by Mr. Sharma at the instance of the Respondent.
Aggrieved by this, on March 3, 1998, the Petitioner filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Delhi seeking compensation of Rs. 15,000 along with the Rs. 5,000 cheque amount, Rs. 10,000 for mental agony and harassment, and costs. The Respondent challenged the jurisdiction of the District Forum contending that Advocates were not covered under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (CPA).
Issue:
Whether a complaint alleging "deficiency in service" against Advocates practising Legal Profession would be maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019?
Held
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment dated May 14, 2024 in Civil Appeal No. 2646 of 2009 held:
The very purpose and object of the CPA, 1986 as re-enacted in 2019 was to provide protection to consumers from unfair trade practices and unethical business practices. The Legislature never intended to include either the Professions or the services rendered by the Professionals within the purview of the CPA, 1986/2019.
The Legal Profession is sui generis i.e. unique in nature as it requires high standards of education, training, and ethics. It cannot be compared with any other profession or business. Advocates have duties towards the court, clients, opponents, and the legal profession itself which distinguishes them from traders or service providers.
A service hired or availed of an Advocate is a service under "a contract of personal service," where the client exercises considerable control over how the Advocate renders services. This falls under the exclusionary part of the definition of "Service" in Section 2(42) of the CPA, 2019.
In view of the above, a complaint alleging "deficiency in service" against Advocates practising the Legal Profession would not be maintainable under the CPA, 2019. The Court observed that the decision in Indian Medical Association vs. V.P. Shantha (1995) holding that medical services fall under the CPA requires reconsideration by a larger bench. The Court set aside the impugned NCDRC order dated 06.08.2007 and allowed the appeals filed by the Bar associations and advocates.
Relevant Sections:
_"Service means service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes, but not limited to, the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, telecom, boarding or lodging or both, housing construction, entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service."_ - Section 2(42), Consumer Protection Act, 2019
_"2(1)(a) - "advocate" means an advocate entered in any roll under the provision of this Act;"_ - Section 2(1)(a), Advocates Act, 1961
Σχόλια