Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a consumer complaint filed by the petitioner before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission No.I, Visakhapatnam, alleging deficiency in service against an advocate, respondent No.4, in relation to a suit filed at the petitioner's instance. The petitioner had engaged the advocate for legal services and claimed that the services rendered were deficient. The District Forum dismissed the complaint on merits by order dated 04.03.2022. The petitioner's first appeal, F.A.No.7 of 2022, was dismissed by the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 16.11.2022. The petitioner's revision petition, being Revision Petition No.8 of 2023, was also dismissed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at New Delhi by judgment dated 20.09.2023. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging all three orders. The core legal issue before the High Court was whether a complaint alleging deficiency in service against an advocate is maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or 2019. The petitioner's counsel was unable to satisfy the court regarding the maintainability of such a complaint. The court noted the settled legal position that an advocate or lawyer, in connection with services rendered on the legal side, is not covered under the Consumer Protection Act. The court relied on the Supreme Court decision in Bar of Indian Lawyers v. D.K. Gandhi PS National Institute of Communicable Diseases, (2024) 8 SCC 430, which considered the relationship between an advocate and client and concluded that the services hired or availed of an advocate are under a contract of personal service and therefore excluded from the definition of 'service' under Section 2(42) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The Supreme Court held that a complaint alleging deficiency in service against advocates practising the legal profession would not be maintainable under the CP Act, 2019, and that the legislature never intended to include professions or services rendered by professionals within the purview of the CP Act, 1986/2019. The Supreme Court also overruled the view taken by the NCDRC that such complaints were maintainable. In view of this binding precedent, the High Court held that the complaint filed by the writ petitioner against the lawyer/advocate under the Consumer Protection Act was not maintainable and had been rightly dismissed by the lower fora. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs, and pending miscellaneous petitions were closed.
Headnote
A) Consumer Law - Deficiency in Service by Advocate - Maintainability - Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(g); Consumer Protection Act, 2019, Section 2(42); Advocates Act, 1961 - The petitioner filed a consumer complaint against respondent No.4, an advocate, alleging deficiency in legal services rendered in connection with a suit filed at his instance. The High Court held that legal services rendered by an advocate are under a contract of personal service and are excluded from the definition of 'service' under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, so the complaint was not maintainable. Reliance was placed on Bar of Indian Lawyers v. D.K. Gandhi PS National Institute of Communicable Diseases, (2024) 8 SCC 430, which held that complaints alleging deficiency in service against advocates practising legal profession are not maintainable under the CP Act and overruled the NCDRC's contrary view. Held that the District Forum, State Commission, and NCDRC rightly dismissed the complaint; writ petition dismissed without costs (Paras 4-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a complaint alleging deficiency in service against an advocate is maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019; and whether the orders of the District Forum, State Commission and NCDRC dismissing the petitioner's consumer complaint warranted interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
Writ Petition dismissed; orders of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission No.I Visakhapatnam dated 04.03.2022, State Commission dated 16.11.2022, and NCDRC dated 20.09.2023 upheld; complaint against advocate not maintainable under Consumer Protection Act; no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions closed.
Law Points
- Advocate/lawyer services on legal side are not covered under Consumer Protection Act
- Services hired or availed of an advocate amount to a contract of personal service and are excluded from definition of service under Section 2(42) of Consumer Protection Act 2019
- Complaint alleging deficiency in service against advocates in legal profession is not maintainable under CP Act 2019
- Legal profession is sui generis and legislature never intended to include professions or services rendered by professionals within CP Act 1986/2019
- View of NCDRC that complaint against lawyers is maintainable under CP Act 1986 is overruled
