Applicability of the provisions of the Act to Advocates.

SRINIVASAN, J.

Writ Petition Nos. 21557 & 21560 of 1994 & Writ Petition Nos. 2109, 2110 & 4233 of 1995,

In these writ petitions, a common question is raised regarding the constitutional validity of Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The prayer in all the writ petitions is for a declaration that Section 3 of the said Act is unconstitutional, being opposed to the object of the Act. The petitioners in these cases are practising advocates. Claims have been made against them by certain persons who are impleaded as respondents in the respective cases before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. In some cases it is before the District Forum and in some cases it is before the State Forum.

2. The contention of the petitioners is that advocates are governed by the Advocates Act and they shall not be made to answer the claims under the Consumer Protection Act. It is contended that the objects of the Act do not contain any provision which will bring in the services rendered by an advocate to his client within the scope of the Consumer Protection Act. It is also argued that the definition of 'consumer' will not include a client, who was availed of the services of an advocate. It is further contended that an advocate should not be made liable to face claims under different statutes. According to the petitioners, an advocate in a particular case, can be made to defend a proceeding (1) under the Advocates Act before the Bar Council, (2) under the Criminal Law before the Criminal Courts, (3) before Civil Court under the Civil Law, and (4) before the Consumer Redressal Forum under the Consumer Protection Act. It is argued that when there is a special enactment governing the advocates, viz., Advocates Act, he shall not be made to face claims under the different Acts, referred to above. In particular, it is stated that the provision contained in Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, by which, the provisions of the said Act are declared to be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being runs counter to the objects of the Act. According to the petitioner, if that Section is struck down as unconstitutional, it will not be possible for any person to drag the advocate before the Consumer Redressal Forum as the claim will be outside the scope of the said Act. It is also submitted that in a proceeding before the Consumer Redressal Forum, no Court-fee is payable and it may be possible for any person to file a frivolous action against the advocate in that Forum and even if that person fails ultimately, and if the advocate wants to make a claim for damages, it cannot be made without payment of Court-fee by the advocate in a Civil Court. Such provisions cause undue hardship and place and advocate in a hazardous situation thereby making his profession worthless.

3. Though the arguments are somewhat attractive, we do not find any substance in the same. As pointed out already, the prayer in these cases is to declare Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act as unconstitutional, being opposed to the objects of the Act. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act reads as follows :

"It seeks, inter alia, to promote and protect the rights of consumers such as :

(a) the right to be protected against marketing of goods which are hazardous to life and property,

(b) the right to be informed about the quality quantity, potency, purity, standard and price of goods, to protect the consumer against unfair trade practices,

(c) the right to be assured, wherever possible, access to variety of goods at competitive prices,

(d) the right to be heard and to be assured that consumer's interests will receive due consideration at appropriate Forums,

(e) the right to seek redressal against unfair trade practice or unscrupulous exploitation of consumers, and

(f) right to consumer education.

4. We are unable to find anything in the Statement of Objects and Reasons which runs counter to the provisions of Section 3 of t