Advocates Not Liable Under Consumer Protection Act

Summary:

[1]The Supreme Court in this case ruled that the complaints about “deficiency in service” against advocates are not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as re-enacted in 2019. This decision follows a 2007 ruling by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) that allowed complaints against lawyers for providing deficient services under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Facts:

The appellant, an advocate, was hired by the respondent for a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. During this case, the accused of the case filed by the respondent agreed to pay the required amounts to settle the matter.

Allegedly, the appellant received the payment but did not deliver it to the respondent, demanding an additional amount in cash instead. Later, the appellant handed over the payment; however, the accused stopped the cheque portion at the appellant’s request.

The respondent then filed a complaint seeking compensation for the delayed payment and mental anguish. The District Forum ruled in favour of the respondent, but the appellant challenged this decision on jurisdictional grounds.

The State Commission sided with the appellant, stating that lawyer services were not covered under the Consumer Protection Act. However, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) overturned this decision, leading to the current appeals by various legal bodies and the appellant.

Issue:

The following issues were framed for consideration:

• Legislative Intent Regarding Inclusion of Professional Services in the CP Act, 1986 (as re-enacted in 2019)
•  Uniqueness of the Legal Profession (Sui Generis)
• Nature of Service Provided by Advocates and Its Classification Under “Contract of Personal Service”

Judgment:

The Apex Court concluded that the Consumer Protection Act of 1986/2019 was not intended to cover professions or services provided by professionals like advocates, considering the unique nature of the legal profession.

Services hired from an advocate are deemed to fall under “a contract of personal service,” thus excluding them from the definition of “service” under the CP Act, making complaints alleging deficiency in service against advocates not maintainable under this law. Consequently, the impugned judgment by the NCDRC has been set aside, and the appeals are allowed.

Analysis:

The Supreme Court in this judgment focused on clarifying the boundaries of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as re-enacted in 2019, particularly concerning complaints against advocates for deficient services. The ruling highlighted that the legislative intent did not encompass professions like legal services under the Act. By categorizing services from advocates as falling under “a contract of personal service,” the Court deemed such services ineligible for the Act’s definition of “service,” rendering complaints against advocates for deficiency in service not tenable. The decision underscored the unique nature of the legal profession as sui generis, emphasizing that the Consumer Protection Act does not extend to services provided by professionals like advocates. By setting aside the NCDRC’s judgment, the Court established a clear legal principle that complaints regarding deficient legal services are outside the Act’s purview, providing guidance on the distinction between personal service contracts and consumer services under the Consumer Protection Act.

[1]  https://ksandk.com/wp-content/uploads/277512007_2024-05-14.pdf

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT

BAR OF INDIAN LAWYERS THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT JASBIR SINGH MALIK

v.

D. K. GANDHI PS NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF COMMUNICABLE DISEASES AND ANR.

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2646 OF 2009

Judgment dated 14TH MAY, 2024