STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI Revision Petition No.RP/22/142 (Arising out of order dated 27/09/2022 passed by D.F.Sangli in CC/16/195)

Shri Shridhar Vasant Kelkar R/o.Omkar Apartment Near Asha Talkies, Miraj .......Revision petitioner Taluka Miraj, Dist.Sangli Versus Mr.Ramchandra Vishnu Magar R/o.2711,Mali Galli Near Miraso Darga, Miraj Taluka Miraj, Dist.Sangli ………Respondent BEFORE: Justice S.P.Tavade – President Vijay C.Premchandani – Member Adv.Vaibhav Kelkar present for revision petitioner on V.C.

PRESENT:

Respondent in person ORAL ORDER (Dt.18/02/2025)

Per Hon’ble Vijay C.Premchandani – Member

1. The present revision petitioner has filed this Revision petition against the impugned order dated 27/09/2022 passed by the District Consumer Commission, Sangli in consumer complaint No.195/2016, whereby the Ld.District Consumer Commission has admitted the consumer complaint against the respondent/org.OP. It is contended that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has decided this issue that the Consumer Protection Act 2019- Sections 2(42), 2(11) of the Advocates Act, 1961-Services hired of Advocates or availed of Professionals are not covered under the Consumer Protection Act. Therefore, order of admitting the consumer complaint may be set aside and the original consumer complaint may be dismissed.

2. The Notice of the petition was issued to the respondent/opponent. The respondent/ opponent appeared in person and objected the petition stating that prior to passing of the said order by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the impugned order was passed, therefore, that order is not applicable in the original complaint.

3. We heard learned advocate for the revision petitioner and the respondent who is present in person. We have gone through the contents of the citation placed on record by the Ld.Advocate for the petitioner i.e. Bar of Indian Lawyers Through its President & ors. v/s. D.K.Gandhi PS National Institute of Communicable Diseases & another, reported in CPJ 33 (SC), wherein it is stated that the Profession and Professional requiring advanced education and training, especially one of three traditional Professions, Law, Medicine and the Ministry, Professional means, someone who belongs to a learned profession or whose occupation requires a high level of training and proficiency, are not coming under the purview of Consumer Protection Act 2019 as contemplated under Sections 2(42), 2(11) of the Advocates Act, 1961.

4. In view of the above mentioned ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, we hold that the services acquired or given by the advocates are not coming under the purview of Consumer Protection Act 1986/2019. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Ld.District Consumer Commission in consumer complaint admitting the consumer complaint against the respondent, who was an advocate is required to be set aside. Hence, we proceed to pass the following order:-

ORDER

1. The Revision petition is allowed.

2. The order passed by the Ld.District Consumer Commission, Sangli in consumer complaint No.195/2016 is set aside and the consumer complaint stands dismissed.

3. No order as to cost.

4. Copy of this order be furnished to both the parties free of cost.

[Justice S.P. Tavade]

President [Vijay C. Premchandani]

Member

MTC