PER S.K.GUPTA, JUDGE,

1. The dominating position acquired by the public and private enterprises providing goods and services of any description made available to the potential users, and the blind race for earning money by fair or foul means led to the consumer exploitation in India. Not only illiterate but educated consumers knew well that they were being exploited, yet they were tolerating it because of expensive and time-consuming procedural delays in instituting cases for damages in the Civil Court. Recognizing the need of the hour, Parliament enacted Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which is a land-mark in the history of socio-economic legislation, a "magna carta" in the field of consumer protection for checking the unfair trade practices and deficiency in relation to goods and services. The provisions of the Act are in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. This envisages a complaint containning allegation about the defects in the goods or deficiency in, service, can be filed by the consumer, In nutshell, the provisions of the Act have to be construed from the stand point of the consumer to achieve and accomplish the purpose of enactment as it is a social benefit oriented legislation. The primary duty of the Court while construing the provisions of such an Act is to adopt a constructive approach subject to that it should not do violence to the language of the provisions and is not contrary to admitted objective of the enactment. The issues posed and the questions involved in this appeal have consequential as well as topical importance for the members of legal profession.

2. We have heard Mr. Subash Bhat, learned counsel for the appellant, as well as Mr. Vipin Gandotra, learned advocate, for the respondent, in extenso. We have also perused the Judgment and order propounded by the J&K State Consumers Protection Commission (hereinafter referred to as "State Commission"), by which the State Commission has awarded a sum of Rs.75,000/- as compensation on account of financial loss, mental torture and harassment to the Respondent-Complainant in context with the material on record. To appreciate the rival contentions put across by the parties, factual backdrop of the case is given in resume.

3. Complainant, Major C. Parsad, an Officer Commanding in the Army, engaged the Respondent-Appellant and hired his services as Lawyer to defend him in proceedings before General Court Martial at Jammu. The Complainant was facing charges of misappropriation before the General Court Martial. According to the Complainant, a fee of Rs.40,000/- was settled for defending him before General Court Martial with the Respondent-Appellant. The Complainant stated to have paid the entire amount of fee in break-up as detailed in the judgment of the State Commission obviously taken from the complaint. It is further stated that during the course of proceedings before General Court Martial, the Respondent-Appellant had withdrawn from the power of attorney and deserted the Complainant on 07-11-1993. That it was a case of deficiency of service, which necessitated the Complainant to approach the Redressal Fora for award of compensation.

4. Respondent-Appellant was put on notice. On the filing of the demurrer by the Respondent-Appellant, the State Commission after going through the plea but across by the respective parties, scanning the evidence, orally and documentary, found the case of deficiency of service of an Advocate hired by a client, sufficiently and cogently established and awarded compensation, which became the subject matter of challenge in this appeal. The controversy raised before the State Commission and reiterated by the Appellant before us hinges on the following issues:

1) Whether the dispute between the client and his counsel with regard to the fee can only be entertained by the State Bar Council Act under Section 35 and the State Commission has no jurisdiction in such, cases under the Cons

Click Here to Read the rest of this document