The central legal point established in the judgment is that the definitions of 'consumer', 'consumer dispute', 'deficiency', and 'service' under the Consumer Protection Act were crucial in determining the legality and validity of the initiation of the proceeding against the Advocate.

A.H. Saikia, J.

1. The legality mid validity of initiation of a proceeding against a practising Advocate by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum on the basis of a complaint lodged against him claiming compensation for deficiency in service to the consumer, has been challenged in this proceeding.

2. The petitioner, an Advocate by profession, has assailed the impugned order dated 15.7.1994 passed in C.P.C. 250/94 by which the learned Member, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Kamrup registered a case against the petitioner on the basis of a complaint filed by the complainant through her authorised representative, stating that the complaint did not disclose any consumer dispute or deficiency in service within the meaning of Sub-section (e), (g) and (o) of Section 2(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short ,'the Act') and as such continuation of the consumer case against him directly amounts to abuse of the process of the Court and accordingly in order to secure the ends of justice, the impugned proceeding as well as the impugned order are liable to be quashed.

3. This Court at the time of issuance of notice on 13.9.1994, granted interim relief to the petitioner by staying the further proceeding of the said consumer case being CPC No. 250/94. Thereafter Rule was issued on 12.8.2003 fixing the matter for hearing in the week commencing from 1.9.2003. Accordingly this writ petition has been pending since 1994. Despite notice and appearance of the respondents through their respective counsel, no counter refuting the averments made in the writ petition has been preferred nor has any application for modification/ alteration or cancellation of the interim order so passed, been filed on behalf of the respondents.

4. I have heard Ms. Usha Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5. None appears for the complainant/Respondent No. 2 as well as the authorised representative of the complainant, i.e., the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Considering the importance of the issue involved in this case, this Court by order dated 2,2.1996 sought the assistance of Mr. N. M. Lahiri, learned Sr. counsel by appointing him as Amicus Curiae. I have also heard Mr. Lahiri, the learned Sr. counsel.

5. Before delving upon the merits of the case it would be apt and necessary to refer the definition of the words - 'consumer', 'consumer dispute', 'deficiency" and 'service' as defined under Sub-sections (d), (e), (g) and Co) of Section 2(1) of the Act respectively. Those definitions read as under :

"(d) "consumer" means any person who :

(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but dose not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose ; or

(ii) hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system or deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person;"

"(e) "consumer dispute" means a dispute where the person against whom a complaint has been made, denies or disputes the allegations contained in the complaint;"

"(g) "deficiency" means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performe