Bar of Indian Lawyers Through its President Jasbir Sigh Malik v. D.K. Gandhi PS National Institute Of Communicable Diseases May 14, 2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 372

Consumer Protection Act, 1986
S.2(1(o):Service – Advocates – Professionals – Highly skilled – Success depends on various factors – Cannot be compared with business – Cannot be held for deficiency of service. S. 2(1)(b)(i) ] Advocates Act , 1961 , S. 2(a) ]

The Appellant, an advocate was hired by Mr. DK Gandhi  for legal services. Disputes arose between them and the Respondent filed a consumer complaint before the district forum for deficiency in services. The District forum decided the complaint in favour of the respondent. The State Commission held that the services of lawyers/advocates did not fall within the ambit of “service” defined under section 2(1)(o) of the CP Act, 1986. The NCDRC, however in the Revision Application preferred by the respondent passed the impugned order holding that if there was any deficiency in service rendered by the Advocates/Lawyers, a complaint under the CP Act would be maintainable.

 

Being aggrieved by the said impugned order passed by the NCDRC, the present set of appeals has been filed by the Bar of Indian Lawyers, Delhi High Court Bar Association, Bar Council of India. Court held that ,  with regard to the nature of the work of a professional, which requires a high level of education, training and proficiency and which involves skilled and specialized kind of mental work, operating in the specialized spheres, where achieving success would depend upon many other factors beyond a man’s control, a Professional cannot be treated equally or at par with a Businessman or a Trader or a Service provider of products or goods .

The Appellant, an advocate was hired by Mr. DK Gandhi  for legal services. Disputes arose between them and the Respondent filed a consumer complaint before the district forum for deficiency in services. The District forum decided the complaint in favour of the respondent. The State Commission held that the services of lawyers/advocates did not fall within the ambit of “service” defined under section 2(1)(o) of the CP Act, 1986. The NCDRC, however in the Revision Application preferred by the respondent passed the impugned order holding that if there was any deficiency in service rendered by the Advocates/Lawyers, a complaint under the CP Act would be maintainable.

 

Being aggrieved by the said impugned order passed by the NCDRC, the present set of appeals has been filed by the Bar of Indian Lawyers, Delhi High Court Bar Association, Bar Council of India. Court held that ,  with regard to the nature of the work of a professional, which requires a high level of education, training and proficiency and which involves skilled and specialized kind of mental work, operating in the specialized spheres, where achieving success would depend upon many other factors beyond a man’s control, a Professional cannot be treated equally or at par with a Businessman or a Trader or a Service provider of products or goods .