Case title: BAR OF INDIAN LAWYERS THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT JASBIR SINGH MALIK AND ORS.. VS. D. K. GANDHI PS NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF COMMUNICABLE DISEASES AND ANR.
Case no: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2646, 2647, 2648 AND 2649 OF 2009
Order on: May 14, 2024
Quorum: Justice PANKAJ MITHAL and Justice BELA M. TRIVEDI
Fact of the case:
The appellant, M. Mathias, is an Advocate by profession. The respondent, Mr. D.K. Gandhi, hired Mathias’s services as an advocate to file a complaint against Kamal Sharma under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi. During the course of the complaint case, Kamal Sharma agreed to pay the sum of Rs.20,000/- for the dishonoured cheque and Rs.5,000/- as expenses to Gandhi. Mathias allegedly received the payment from Kamal Sharma but did not deliver it to Gandhi, demanding Rs.5,000/- in cash from Gandhi instead. Mathias filed a suit for recovery of Rs.5,000/- in the court of Small Causes, Delhi, claiming it as his fees.
Eventually, Mathias gave the payment to Gandhi, but Kamal Sharma stopped the payment of Rs.5,000/- at Mathias’s instance. Gandhi filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, seeking compensation and alleging mental agony and harassment. Mathias objected to the jurisdiction of the District Consumer Forum, argued that advocates were not covered under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The District Forum rejected Mathias’s objection and ruled in Favor of Gandhi. Mathias appealed to the State Commission, which allowed the appeal, stating that the services of lawyers did not fall within the ambit of “service” which is defined under section 2(1) (o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) passed an impugned order in a Revision Application.
Issues framed by court:
Whether the services provided by lawyers/advocates fall within the definition of “service” under section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Legal provisions:
section 2(1)(o) of the CP Act, 1986: Deals with service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes, but not limited to, the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy etc. But does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service;
Contentions of Appellant:
Advocates’ services do not fall under the definition of “service” as per the CP Act. The District Consumer Forum had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute as it pertained to legal services. The impugned order by the NCDRC was erroneous and should be reversed.
Contentions of Respondents:
Advocates’ services are indeed covered under the definition of “service” as per the CP Act. The District Consumer Forum has the jurisdiction to hear and decide consumer disputes, including those related to legal services. The impugned order by the NCDRC correctly upheld the jurisdiction of the District Consumer Forum and should be affirmed.
Court analysis:
The case revolves around a dispute between an advocate, M. Mathias, and his client, Mr. D.K. Gandhi, regarding the payment for legal services rendered in a case involving a dishonoured cheque. Mathias represented Gandhi in a complaint against Kamal Sharma under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.. The court ruled that legal services provided by advocates fall within the definition of “service” under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It held that consumer forums have jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes involving such services.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed By- Antara Ghosh
