BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
PRESENT
SRI.P.V.JAYARAJAN : PRESIDENT
SMT. PREETHA G. NAIR : MEMBER
SRI. VIJU V.R : MEMBER
C.C. No. 03/2019 Filed on 10/01/2019
ORDER DATED: 25/10/2024
Complainant | : | Mohan Das, S/o.Kunju Sankar, Soumya Vilasam, Perumkuzhi.P.O., Muttappalam, Chirayinkeezhu – 695 305. (By Adv.Anuja.B.S) |
Opposite party | : | M.K.Ratheesh Kumar, Advocate, Attingal Bar Association, Attingal.P.O – 695 101. (By Adv.Mohanachandran) |
ORDER
SRI. VIJU V.R : MEMBER
The complainant has presented this complaint before this Commission under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The brief facts of the case is the complainant during the year 2006 met with an accident & sustained serious injuries. The complainant for getting compensation entrusted the opposite party for filing a case. But the complainant later came to know that the opposite party has not filed any case for getting compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident. The act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service, hence this complaint.
2. After admitting the complaint notice was issued to the opposite party. The said notice was received on 06/07/2019. The opposite party entered appearance and filed version and averred that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.
3. The opposite party is a practicing advocate having more than 35 years of experiences. The complainant has not approached the opposite party for claiming compensation for sustaining the injuries in an accident during the year 2006. The complainant has not entrusted any records for filing a case for getting compensation. The complainant approached the opposite party with an accident register cum wound certificate issued from the Taluk Head Quarters Hospital, Chirayinkeezh on 29/05/2000 for filing the case. As no police case was registered about this accident, on 03/06/2000 a complaint was filed before the Hon’ble Judicial First Class Magistrate Court –I, Attingal and it was sent to the police station concerned by the court under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Except the accident register cum wound certificate no other documents were entrusted to the opposite party by the complainant. The complaint has not approached the opposite party for further proceedings, so no case was filed by the opposite party. It is admitted by the opposite party that a complaint was filed by the complainant before the Hon’ble Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Attingal by the complainant and after conducting enquiry seeing that the complaint is not true it was dismissed. There is no deficiency in service from the side of the opposite party, hence the complaint may be dismissed with the cost.
4. Issues to be ascertained:
- Whether the complaint is maintainable or not?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service from the side of opposite party?
5. Issues (i): The complainant has filed this case against the opposite party, who is an advocate. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Bar of Indian Lawyers Through Its President Jasbir Singh Malik Vs D.K.Gandhi PA national Institute of Communicable Diseases and Anr., 2024(3)KHC SN 25, has held that :
“42. in that view of the matter, we summarize out conclusions as under:-
(i). The very purpose and object of the CP Act 1986 as re-enacted in 2019 was to provide protection to the consumers from unfair trade practices and unethical business practices, and the Legislature never intended to include either the Professions or the services rendered by the Professionals within the purview of the said Act of 1986/2019.
(ii). The Legal Profession is sui generis i.e. unique in nature and cannot be compared with any other Profession.
(iii). A service hired or availed of an Advocate is a service under “a contract of personal service”, and therefore would fall within the exclusionary part of the definition of “Service” contained in Section 2 (42) of the CP Act 2019.
(iv). A complaint alleging “deficiency in service” against Advocates practicing Legal Profession would not be maintainable under the CP Act. 2019.”
6. So the complaint stands dismissed as not maintainable. Parties shall bear their own cost. Since the issue no.(i) is found against the complainant, we are not going to the merit of the complainant.
In the result the complaint is dismissed. There will be no order as to cost.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements is forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 25th day of October, 2024.
Sd/-
P.V.JAYARAJAN : PRESIDENT
Sd/-
PREETHA G. NAIR : MEMBER
Sd/-
VIJU V.R : MEMBER
C.C.No.03/2019
APPENDIX
I COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:
II COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:
P1 | : | Copy of the complaint before the Judge, MACT,Attingal. |
P2 | : | Copy of the proceedings of the chairman, Taluk Legal Services Committee, Chirayinkeezhu. |
III OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:
IV OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:
D1 | : | Copy of complaint filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Attingal. |
D2 | : | Copy of the Accident –cum -Wound certificate. |
D3 | : | Copy of the application filed under RTI Act. |
D4 series | | |
D4 | : | Covering letter dated 29/03/2023. |
D4(a) | : | Copy of the complaint before the Judge, MACT,Attingal. |
D4(b) | : | Copy of the letter dated 08/02/2018. |
D4(c) | : | Copy of the proceedings of the chairman, Taluk Legal Services Committee, Chirayinkeezhu. |
D4(d) | : | Copy of the B-dairy proceedings. |
D4(e) | : | Copy of the statement given by Mohandas in front of the Tribunal. |
D4(f) | : | Copy of the notice dated 28/12/2017. |
D4(g) | : | Application filed by Mohandas. |
D5 | : | Postal cover. |
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
