can Service of Advocate fall within the ambit CP Act
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 02 March 2010
This query is : Resolved
can Service of Advocate fall within the ambit of Consumer Protection Act?
what is recent opinion of National Commission? and Supreme Court?
Guest
(Expert) 02 March 2010
the services rendered by lawyers would not come within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act and, therefore, consumers had no right to file cases against lawyers before consumer courts.
Therefore, lawyers were not liable under the CP Act for deficient or negligent service
i am searching relevant citation.pls wait. ok
Sanjeev Panda
(Expert) 02 March 2010
Lawyers are not liable under Consumer Protection Act and I agree with my Ld. Brother Ajitabh
Guest
(Expert) 02 March 2010
Temporarily suspending the apex consumer court order, the Supreme Court has ruled that advocates do come under the Consumer Protection Act
Published on 04/14/2009 - 12:24:44 PM
New Delhi: In a temporary ruling, the Supreme Court has held that advocates are not liable to be dragged to consumer courts for allegedly providing unsatisfactory services to their clients.
A bench of Justice Lokeshwar Singh Panta and Justice B Sudarshan Reddy gave the ruling, while suspending the country's apex consumer court order that held advocates to be within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and liable to be dragged to consumer courts.
The bench gave the temporary ruling after a cursory and preliminary examination of the relevant laws and said it would give final hearing after a detailed examination of the issue, reports IANS.
On a lawsuit challenging a decision of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission that said advocates are within the ambit of the consumer law, the apex court earlier had issued notices to the government and various other parties without suspending the NCDRC order.
Pending its detailed examination of the issue, the apex court on Monday stayed the NCDRC order.
The petitioner, Bar of Indian Lawyers' (BIL), had contended in its lawsuit that the August 6, 2007, order of the commission was not maintainable as consumer forums that followed summary proceedings could not decide a lawyer's alleged negligence.
Terming the decision to subject lawyers to the jurisdiction of consumer courts as illegal, BIL President Jasbir Singh Malik claimed the commission failed to make a distinction between the profession of lawyers and that of doctors.
"The relationship between an advocate and his client is in no way comparable to the relationship of doctor and patient," Malik said.
In its order, the NCRDC had said that lawyers were as liable as doctors or any other professionals for negligence and deficiency in service and clients had every right to take them to courts if they failed to do what was expected of them.
It had reversed an order of the Delhi Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which had on March 10, 2006, held that the services rendered by lawyers would not come within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act and, therefore, consumers had no right to file cases against lawyers before consumer courts.
However, the petitioner contended that the lawyers were basically the officers of the court who had a duty to assist the court and not to act as a mouthpiece of the client.
"The lawyer renders his assistance to his client and nothing more, whereas the doctor-patient relationship is one to one...Lawyers cannot at all be compared with doctors," the petitioner said.
It said the NCRDC failed to appreciate the difference between a "consumer" as defined under the Consumer Protection Act and a "client". The Advocates Act governs the lawyer-client relationship.
The BIL submitted that a client executes the power of attorney, authorising the lawyer to do certain acts on his behalf, and there is no term of contract as to the liability of the lawyer in case he fails to do any such act.
When a client hires a lawyer, it is a unilateral contract executed by the client, giving authority to the lawyer to appear and represent the matter on his behalf without any specific assurance or undertaking.
Therefore, lawyers were not liable under the CP Act for deficient or negligent service, it claimed.
It claimed that the apex consumer court committed a grave error in law by encroaching upon the jurisdicton of Bar Council, a statutory body entitled to handle complaint against advocates.
Sanjeev Panda
(Expert) 02 March 2010
I have found an interesting case, In USA, the lawyers are covered under Consumer Protection laws. The Colorado Supreme has held that attorneys are subject to liability for deceptive advertising under the state's consumer protection act, rejecting a law firm's argument that the statute exempts the practice of law.
B K Raghavendra Rao
(Expert) 02 March 2010
At my request, Sri R. R. Krishnaa has sent me the following message which is relevant to the query:
Lawyers not liable under consumer Act: SC: 14 April 2009 NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday stayed a ruling of the apex consumer forum holding that services rendered by an advocate to his client in the course of litigation be covered under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. A Bench comprising Justices L S Panta and B Sudershan Reddy stayed the ruling of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), which was challenged by a large number of advocate bodies after lawyers raised a hue and cry over the prospect of being sued by clients for deficient service. The appeals were filed by Bar of Indian Lawyers, Delhi High Court Bar Association and Bar Council of India. One of the lawyers' bodies represented by advocate Jasbir Malik argued that lawyers rendered legal assistance and not service to the clients. One Devender Kumar Gandhi had filed a complaint before District Consumer Redressal Forum alleging deficiency of service against his lawyer M Mathai. The district forum on June 1, 2000, held the lawyer liable and asked him to pay Rs 3,000 as compensation for mental agony and another Rs 1,000 as cost. On the appeal filed by the lawyer, the state commission reversed the finding and said that lawyers were not liable to be proceeded against as the services rendered by them did not come within the ambit of the consumer law. However, the NCDRC set aside the state commission's verdict and held that if there was deficiency in service rendered by lawyers, complaint under Consumer Protection Act was maintainable against them. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Lawyers-not-liable-under-consumer-Act-SC/articleshow/4396828.cms
Binod Kumar Mishra
(Expert) 03 March 2010
Yes the services of the advocates comes under Consumer Protection Act, because in a recent judgement of Apex Court, i have read that, when an advocate received the VAKALATNAMA from his client he agrees to give him satisfactory service and owing to this reasons he comes under CP Act.
Guest
(Expert) 05 March 2010
Mr Binod. please post the citation of judgement for us. Thanks
Advocate. Arunagiri
(Expert) 27 November 2010
The services of the advocate cannot come under the CP Act. If the client is not satisfied against the advocate his only remedy is complaint before the Bar Council. When there is such a provision is available for the client, the CP act is not applicable.
