The court was dealing with “deficiency in service” under the Consumer Protection Act.
New Delhi:
The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that the complaint alleging “deficiency in service” against advocates would not be maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act (CP Act) as it noted that the legal profession is unique in nature and cannot be compared with any other occupation.
A bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal said this while setting aside the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission decision.
“Thus, a considerable amount of direct control is exercised by the Client over the manner in which an Advocate renders his services during the course of his employment,” the court said.
“All of these attributes strengthen our opinion that the services hired or availed of by an advocate would be those of a contract ‘of personal service’ and would therefore stand excluded from the definition of “service” contained in Section 2(42) of the CP Act, 2019. As a necessary corollary, a complaint alleging deficiency in service against advocates practising the legal profession would not be maintainable under the CP Act, 2019,” the court said,” the court said.
The court observed that the very purpose and objective of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, as re-enacted in 2019, was to provide protection to consumers from unfair trade practices and unethical business practices, and the Legislature never intended to include either the Professions or the services rendered by professionals within the purview of the said Act.
“The legal profession is sui generis i.e. unique in nature and cannot be compared with any other Profession,” the court said.
A service hired or availed of an Advocate is a service under “a contract of personal service,” and therefore would fall within the exclusionary part of the definition of “Service” contained in Section 2 (42) of the CP Act 2019, the court remarked.
The Supreme Court set aside the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
The top court was hearing a set of appeals emanating from the impugned order dated August 6, 2007 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), Delhi in Revision Petition, in which the NCDRC has held, inter alia (among other things), that if there was any deficiency in service rendered by the Advocates/Lawyers, a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, would be maintainable.
The court was dealing with a question of law pertaining to the legal profession as a whole – whether a complaint alleging “deficiency in service” against advocates practising Legal Profession, would be maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as re-enacted in 2019?
The court was dealing with issue whether a “service” hired or availed of an Advocate would fall within the definition of “service” contained in the CP Act, 1986-2019, so as to bring him within the purview of the said Act.
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)
