Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
The presence of arbitration clauses or alternative remedies does not automatically make a consumer dispute against an advocate maintainable; the core issue remains whether the dispute qualifies as a 'consumer dispute' under the Act ["Raghavan K.V. v. Stephan P. S. - Kerala"].
Analysis and Conclusion:
References:- ["Raghavan K.V. v. Stephan P. S. - Kerala"]- ["Balageria Central Co-operative Bank Limited VS Star Sea Food - Calcutta"]- ["Shriram Chits (India) Private Limited Earlier Known As Shriram Chits (K) Pvt. Ltd. VS Raghachand Associates - Supreme Court"]- ["Managing Director, T. R. N. Energy Pvt. Ltd. VS Antim Rai - Consumer"]- ["State of Himachal Pradesh and Others v. Suresh Kumar - Delhi"]- ["Bar of Indian Lawyers through its President Jasbir Singh Malik VS D. K. Gandhi PS National Institute of Communicable Diseases - 2024 4 Supreme 483"]- ["Indusind Bank Limited vs Sabita Ghosh - Calcutta"]- ["M/S. SUNLIGHT DEV-CON PVT. LTD. vs M/S. LODHA HEALTHY CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. & 2 ORS. - Consumer National"]- ["Volvo India Private Ltd. VS Krishna Construction and Transportation - Consumer"]- ["M. Ashok Kumar VS K. Rajasekhar - Consumer"]- ["Anjali Maitra VS Kothari Medical Center - Consumer"]- ["Rakhi Mahendra VS Subhash Traders and Contractors - Consumer"]- ["Shahul Hameed VS HDFC Standard Insurance - Consumer"]- ["Gupta Sales Corporation VS National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Upbhokta Nyay Bhawan, F- Block, General Post Office Complex, New Delhi - Rajasthan"]- ["New India Assurance Company Limited VS Meera Verma - Himachal Pradesh"]- ["Babulal Kuberchand Gandhi VS Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. - Consumer"]- ["Balmukand Joshi VS Suresh Rathi Securities Pvt. Ltd. - Consumer"]- ["Pradeep Mahesh Kothari VS Myk Laticrete Pvt. Ltd. - Consumer"]- ["Devulapalli Venkate Swara Rao S/o. Muralidhar Rao VS Pochambavi China Janga Reddy S/o. Pochambavi Yadi Reddy - Consumer"]- ["M. Hemalatha Devi VS B. Udayasri - Supreme Court"]
Imagine hiring a lawyer for a crucial case, only to feel let down by their service. Your first instinct might be to file a complaint in consumer court for 'deficiency in service.' But is a consumer dispute maintainable against an advocate? The short answer, based on a landmark Supreme Court decision, is no. This ruling clarifies the boundaries of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as re-enacted in 2019), excluding legal services from its scope. In this post, we'll break down the judgment, key rationale, and what options clients have instead.
This article provides general information and is not legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your specific situation.
The question at hand is straightforward: whether a consumer dispute is maintainable against an advocate. It hinges on whether advocates qualify as 'service providers' under Section 2(1)(o) of the 1986 Act now Section 2(42) of the 2019 Act, making their clients 'consumers' eligible for redressal in consumer forums.
In a definitive five-judge bench decision, the Supreme Court held that complaints alleging deficiency in service against advocates are not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act. Justice Bela M. Trivedi emphasized: There was not a whisper in statement of objects and reasons either of CP Act, 1986 or 2019 to include Professions or Services provided by Professionals like Advocates, Doctors etc. within purview of the Act – Professionals could not be called Businessmen or Traders, nor Clients or Patients be called Consumers – Terms ‘business’ or ‘trade’ having a commercial aspect involved, could not be used interchangeably with term ‘Profession’ which normally would involve some branch of learning or science. Bar of Indian Lawyers through its President Jasbir Singh Malik VS D. K. Gandhi PS National Institute of Communicable Diseases - 2024 4 Supreme 483
The Court further noted: Any interpretation of Preamble or scheme of Act for construing ‘Profession’ as ‘Business’ or ‘Trade’; or ‘Professional’ as ‘service provider’ would be extending scope of Act which was not intended, rather would have a counter productive effect. Bar of Indian Lawyers through its President Jasbir Singh Malik VS D. K. Gandhi PS National Institute of Communicable Diseases - 2024 4 Supreme 483 Justice Pankaj Mithal concurred, stating that services of professionals more particularly that of lawyers have to be excluded from consumer protection law in accordance with intention expressed in enacting the same. Bar of Indian Lawyers through its President Jasbir Singh Malik VS D. K. Gandhi PS National Institute of Communicable Diseases - 2024 4 Supreme 483
The legal profession is sui generis—unique in nature—and cannot be equated with business or trade. It relies on specialized knowledge and is inherently service-oriented, not commercial. Key reasons include:- No Legislative Intent: The Act's Statement of Objects and Reasons makes no mention of including professional services like those of advocates. Bar of Indian Lawyers through its President Jasbir Singh Malik VS D. K. Gandhi PS National Institute of Communicable Diseases - 2024 4 Supreme 483- Floodgates of Litigation: Allowing such complaints would overwhelm consumer commissions, undermining the Act's summary procedure designed for unfair trade practices. Bar of Indian Lawyers through its President Jasbir Singh Malik VS D. K. Gandhi PS National Institute of Communicable Diseases - 2024 4 Supreme 483- Historical and Constitutional Roots: Lawyers' role is distinct, rooted in constitutional privileges. Bar of Indian Lawyers through its President Jasbir Singh Malik VS D. K. Gandhi PS National Institute of Communicable Diseases - 2024 4 Supreme 483
Previously, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) took a contrary stance. It held: The ambit and scope of Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act which defines ‘service’ is very wide... Undisputedly, lawyers are rendering service. They are charging fees. It is not a contract of personal service. D. K. Gandhi VS M. Mathias - Consumer (2007)
This view—that complaints against lawyers for deficiency in service are maintainable—has been expressly overruled by the Supreme Court. The impugned NCDRC judgment was set aside, making prior decisions non-binding. Bar of Indian Lawyers through its President Jasbir Singh Malik VS D. K. Gandhi PS National Institute of Communicable Diseases - 2024 4 Supreme 483D. K. Gandhi VS M. Mathias - Consumer (2007)
To understand the exclusion of advocates, consider what typically qualifies as a consumer dispute. The Act covers 'deficiency in service' in a commercial context, but exclusions abound for non-commercial or professional activities.
Corporate entities engaging in business are generally not 'consumers.' In one case, a corporate complainant challenging electricity consumption charges was dismissed: Corporate entities are considered commercial entities and are not entitled to avail remedy under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The court confirmed the District Forum's dismissal, noting the appellant's status as a commercial entity. DREAM WORKS ENTERTAINMENT AND SOFTWARE LTD. VS B. S. E. S. LIMITED
Similarly, in a prawn farming dispute, the State Commission rightly held no privity of contract and deemed it a commercial transaction: No record produced to show that cheques... were realized by respondent or that each complainant made any payment directly... Land involved was 150 acres of aqua land loss alleged was 95 lakhs. Amanchi Rajendra Prasad VS Dabur Ayurvet Ltd. (Aqua)
Disputes from auction sales fall outside: No consumer dispute can arisen out of a relationship of a seller and a purchaser in an auction... there is no arrangement of hiring of service for consideration between parties. A State Commission's allowance of such a claim was overturned as perverse. Rajasthan Financial Corporation VS M. K. Bhoot
Contrastingly, where a clear consumer-service nexus exists, like non-payment of deposit maturity by a finance firm, partners are jointly liable: Opposite parties being partners of the firm jointly and severally liable... Non-payment of maturity amount deficiency in service. B. Shyam VS Srinidhi Enterprises
Even maintainable complaints with intricate facts may be redirected: In cases involving complicated questions of facts and law, including disputed documents, the Consumer Commission may refer the matter to the Civil Court. An insurance premium dispute was sent to civil court despite initial maintainability. AMEIRALI A. MUKADAM VS UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.
These cases reinforce that consumer forums target straightforward commercial deficiencies, not professional services or complex/commercial dealings—aligning with the advocate exclusion. DREAM WORKS ENTERTAINMENT AND SOFTWARE LTD. VS B. S. E. S. LIMITEDRajasthan Financial Corporation VS M. K. BhootAmanchi Rajendra Prasad VS Dabur Ayurvet Ltd. (Aqua)B. Shyam VS Srinidhi EnterprisesAMEIRALI A. MUKADAM VS UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.
If dissatisfied with an advocate's service:1. Bar Council Proceedings: File for professional misconduct.2. Civil Suit: Sue for negligence or breach of contract.3. Criminal Complaint: If fraud or criminal negligence applies.
Raise preliminary objections on maintainability in consumer forums—they should succeed per Supreme Court precedent. Bar of Indian Lawyers through its President Jasbir Singh Malik VS D. K. Gandhi PS National Institute of Communicable Diseases - 2024 4 Supreme 483
This ruling promotes clarity, protecting the legal profession's integrity while directing grievances appropriately. Stay informed on evolving consumer law—changes in the 2019 Act haven't altered this stance.
References:1. Supreme Court Judgment: Bar of Indian Lawyers through its President Jasbir Singh Malik VS D. K. Gandhi PS National Institute of Communicable Diseases - 2024 4 Supreme 4832. Overruled NCDRC: D. K. Gandhi VS M. Mathias - Consumer (2007)3. Additional Cases: B. Shyam VS Srinidhi Enterprises, Rajasthan Financial Corporation VS M. K. Bhoot, Amanchi Rajendra Prasad VS Dabur Ayurvet Ltd. (Aqua), DREAM WORKS ENTERTAINMENT AND SOFTWARE LTD. VS B. S. E. S. LIMITED, AMEIRALI A. MUKADAM VS UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.
Word count: ~1050. General info only—seek professional advice.
#ConsumerLaw #AdvocateLiability #SupremeCourt
The question as to whether a consumer of electricity against whom theft of electrical energy was alleged would come within the definition of ˜consumer' under the Act was considered by the Apex Court in the decision reported in 2013 (8) SCC 491 (supra). ... not be maintainable. ... to redress any dispute with regard to the matters which do not come within the meaning of ˜service' as defined under S.2(1)(o) or ˜complaint' as defined under S.2(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. .....
Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the complaint case filed by the opposite parties is not maintainable as Learned West Bengal State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission Kilkata has no jurisdiction to try the case. ... The petitioners being aggrieved by the order dated 28th July 2022 passed by the Learned West Bengal State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission Kolkata has come up with the instant application. Heard Learned Advocate for the petitioner an....
on behalf of such persons are not maintainable. ... On 16.11.2015, the High Court directed the complainant to approach the Consumer Forum and held that said cases were not maintainable under the Chit Funds Act. 6. ... In the written version, the OP, apart from contesting the claim on merits, raised a preliminary objection that the complaint is not maintainable since the complainant does not qualify the definition of a ‘consumer’. ... There was no specific issue framed on the preliminary ques....
In our considered view learned District Commission has erred in holding the complainant ‘consumer’ and the dispute as consumer dispute. ... ‘consumer’, hence at the very outset the complaint was not maintainable before the District Commission. ... The complaint of the respondent herein filed before the District Commission is dismissed accordingly being not maintainable before a Consumer Commission. ... We are of the considered view that learned Dist....
Accordingly, the District Forum also held that the complaint filed by the respondent was maintainable and that the District Forum had the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute. ... Abhishek Sood, Advocate on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. B. L. Sharma, Advocate for the respondent / complainant. 5. ... The first issue has two parts, the first of which relates to whether the respondent / complainant could not be at all held to be a "consumer" under the Act, even if it were accept....
/Lawyers, a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “CP Act, 1986”) would be maintainable. ... An important question of law pertaining to the Legal Profession as a whole that has fallen for consideration before this Court is - whether a complaint alleging “deficiency in service” against Advocates practising Legal Profession, would be maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, ... ” Hence, let us see whether in case of Ad....
Forum below failed to observe that the present dispute has arisen out of a contract and as such the dispute is purely contractual in nature; that the Ld. ... District Forum failed to appreciate that the Complaint was not at all maintainable in law and fact; that the Ld. Forum below also failed to appreciate that the Respondent No. 1 / Complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of the provision of the said Act; that the Ld. ... It has been focused that the Court at Chennai has the jurisdiction to decide the #HL_STAR....
The only question to be considered in the present case is whether the Appellant herein, who was Complainant before the State Commission, is a Consumer under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act 2019. ... Hence, we hold that the Appellant herein-does not satisfy the definition of being a Consumer under Section 2(7) of the Act. Hence, the Consumer Complaint is not maintainable. ... It is, therefore, held that since the Complainant Company does not fall within the definition of a....
to be maintainable. ... As a requirement for his work, the complainant placed purchase order in dispute for his livelihood.” ... The issue for our consideration is as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the complainant is a ‘consumer’ or not as per the definition under section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act. ... In view of the above, we are of the view that the complainant is not a consumer as defined under section 2(1)(d) read with Explanation of the Act and the complaint is not ma....
Before going into the merits of the case we intend to decide whether the complainant is a consumer and whether the dispute between the complainant and opposite parties is a consumer dispute. Ex.A1 is the crucial document. ... Whether the complaint is maintainable? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief’s as prayed for? 3. To what relief? 6. ... It is not in dispute that the Complainant paid....
He has filed copies of the cash certificate and legal notice dated 1.3.2003. / It is stated that the complaint is not maintainable and the dispute is not a consumer dispute.— 4. The opposite party No. 4 has filed counter denying his liability to pay the amount, to the complainant. The complainant filed his affidavit in the shape of evidence.
The point, which falls for consideration, is—as to whether the complainant was a ‘consumer’ and the dispute alleged is a consumer dispute and whether the dispute raised can be adjudicated under the Act? 8. Aggrieved by the forfeiture of the sum of Rs.1,75,000 complaint was filed which was dismissed by the District Forum but allowed by the State Commission as mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs.
2. Whether there was privity of contract between the complainants and the Opposite party? 3. Whether the dispute raised by the complainants is a consumer dispute? 4. Whether the finding of the District Forum relying on Anu Lab Report and report of CIBA, Chennai is sustainable?
However, considering the predicament of the complainant and the imminent threat expressed above, as a matter of indulgence, on certain terms indicated below, we are inclined to grant some breathing time to the complainant/appellant. We ascertained from the learned Counsel for the appellant the extent of dues towards consumption charges payable to the respondents and it was stated that the complainants have already paid some amount to the Electricity Board/respondent and a sum of around Rs. 3 lakhs is due and payable according to calculation of the complainant. We have also held tha....
We hold that the complaint is a consumer dispute and the same is maintainable. Thus, there is absolutely no force in the submission of the opposite party that the complaint is not tenable.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
