DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 30th day of July, 2024
Filed On: 23/10/2019
PRESENT:
Shri. D.B. Binu President
Shri. V. Ramachandran Member
Smt. Sreevidhia. T.N. Member
C.C.No.390/2019
COMPLAINANT:
T.N. Muraleedharan Nair, S/o. Late Narayana Pillai, "Sruthi", H.No.43/2713., S.R.M. Road, Ernakulam-682 018
OPPOSITE PARTY
T. Shiju George, Advocate, N.S.S. Building, North Paravur-683 513
(Rep. by Adv. Shaijan C. George, Adv. Sajitha George, M/s. Shaijan C. George & Associates, 2nd Floor, Edassery Building, (Blue Mount), Banerji Road, Ernakulam, Cochin-682 031)
FINAL ORDER
D.B. Binu, President:
- A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:
The complainant filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service by the opposite party. The complaint arises from a long-standing legal dispute regarding the partition of properties, which was litigated from the Munsiff Court, North Paravur, to the Hon’ble High Court over ten years, ultimately resulting in a dismissal of the case. The complainant alleges that the opposite party’s negligence and inefficiency led to the failure of his case and has claimed compensation for the losses allegedly incurred due to the said deficiency in service.
Legal Analysis and Reasoning:
The primary issue for consideration is whether the complaint against an advocate for alleged deficiency in service is maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, of 1986. The complainant has invoked the jurisdiction of this Commission because the advocate, being a service provider, has failed in his duty to provide competent legal representation.
However, the recent landmark judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Bar of Indian Lawyers Through Its President Jasbir Singh Malik vs. D.K. Gandhi P.S. National Institute of Communicable Diseases, Diary No. 27751 of 2007, Citation: 2024 Live Law (SC) 372, has clarified the legal position regarding the liability of advocates under the Consumer Protection Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court categorically held that advocates cannot be held liable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as re-enacted in 2019) for deficiency of services. The Court distinguished professions and businesses or trades, emphasizing that professionals, including advocates, require advanced education, specialized training, and a substantial amount of skill, much of which is mental rather than manual.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that:
"We are therefore of the considered opinion that the very purpose and object of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 as re-enacted in 2019 was to provide protection to the consumers from unfair trade practices and unethical business practices. There is nothing to suggest that the legislature ever intended to include professions or professionals within the purview of the Act,"
The Hon’ble Supreme Court further clarified that:
"We have distinguished profession from business and trade. We have said that a profession would require advance education and training in some branch of learning or science. The nature of work is specialisation and skill, substantial part of which is mental than manual. Having regard to the nature of work of a professional, which requires a high level of education and training and proficiency, and which involves skill and specialised kind of mental work operating in specialised spheres, where actual success depends on various factors beyond one'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 Hon’ble Supreme Court also observed that the nature of work undertaken by professionals involves a high degree of specialization and that outcomes often depend on factors beyond the professional's control. Consequently, advocates cannot be equated with service providers engaged in trade or commerce who offer goods or services to consumers.
The judgment further elaborated that the Consumer Protection Act was designed to protect consumers from unfair trade practices and unethical business practices, and there is no indication that the legislature intended to bring professionals like advocates within the purview of this Act.
In light of the aforementioned Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment, this Commission observes that the very basis of the complaint is flawed. The Consumer Protection Act does not extend to claims against advocates for alleged deficiency in professional services. The complainant’s grievance pertains to the outcome of a legal process, which inherently involves uncertainty and depends on multiple factors, including judicial discretion.
Moreover, the professional conduct of advocates is regulated by the Bar Council of India, and any alleged misconduct or negligence should be addressed through the appropriate legal channels, such as disciplinary proceedings before the Bar Council.
Conclusion:
Given the legal precedents and the clear distinction drawn by the Hon’ble Supreme Court between professionals and service providers under the Consumer Protection Act, this complaint is not maintainable. The Commission does not have the jurisdiction to entertain claims against advocates for alleged deficiency in legal services.
Order:
The complaint is hereby dismissed as not maintainable. No cost.
Pronounced in the Open Commission this the 30th day of July, 2024.
Sd/-
D.B. Binu, President
Sd/-
V. Ramachandran, Member
Sd/-
Sreevidhia T.N., Member
Forwarded/By Order
Assistant Registrar
Despatch date:
By hand: By post
kp/
CC No. 390/2019
Order Date: 30/08/2024
