STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI Consumer Complaint No.CC/09/107 Mr. Manhar P. Khadawala

111, Ajay Apartments, 11th Floor, 16, Hansaraj Lane, Byculla, Mumbai – 400 027. .....Complainant Versus

1. Mr. Shivram J. Gaikar, B.A. (Hons), LL.B., Advocate, High Court Golavali, Kalyan Shill Road, Gurukrupa Hotel, M.I.D.C. Dombivali, Dist: Thane.

2. Mr. Vishwanath B. Humane, Advocate, High Court At – Sapgaon, Post: Khutghar, Tal: Shahapur, Dist: Thane .....Opposite Parties BEFORE:

Hon’ble Mr. Mukesh V. Sharma, Presiding Member Hon’ble Ms. Poonam V. Maharshi, Member PRESENT:

For the Complainant : In person For Opposite Party : Advocate R.P. Lote, Advocate P.B. Kadam

JUDGMENT

(Date - 12-06-2025)

Per: Hon’ble Mr. Mukesh V. Sharma, Presiding Member

1. None present for Complainant. Advocate for Opposite Parties present.

2. Since long Complainant is absent and earlier Roznama shows matter was adjourned as complaint is against advocate and whether such complaint is maintainable was the issue pending before Hon’ble Supreme Court.

3. Perused the complaint. Complaint in nutshell is that Complainant engaged the services of the Opposite Parties, who are practicing advocates, for representation in Civil Suit No. 220/2004. It is alleged that the Opposite Parties failed to appear regularly and did not file necessary documents despite repeated requests and submission of prepared papers by the Complainant. Due to their negligence, the suit was dismissed on 31.12.2008, and Complainant suffered financial loss. The Complainant also alleged unprofessional conduct, lack of communication, and failure to attend court proceedings, and therefore claimed refund of fees and compensation.

4. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in Bar of Indian Lawyers v. D. K. Gandhi PS National Institute of Communicable Diseases, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 928, decided on 14-05-2024, stated that consumer complaints are not maintainable against advocates.

5. We have carefully perused the said order. Hon’ble Supreme Court held that professional misconduct and negligence by advocates are covered under the Advocates Act, 1961, making the Advocates Act the prevailing law over the Consumer Protection Act for issues related to advocates’ conduct.

6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also highlighted the sui generis nature of the legal profession, distinguishing it from other professions, and concluded that the services rendered by advocates under a contract of personal service do not fall within the definition of ‘service’ under the Consumer Protection Act.

7. In light of the above referred judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we find that the complaint against the advocates is not maintainable and hereby dismissed as not maintainable. Hence, we proceed to pass following order:

FINAL ORDER

1) The Complaint is dismissed in the light of the Supreme Court judgment as not maintainable.

2) No order as to costs.

3) Order copy be supplied free of cost to both the parties.

[Mukesh V. Sharma]

Presiding Member [Poonam V. Maharshi]

Member