LexBAR OF INDIAN LAWYERS THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT JASBIR SINGH MALIK versus D. K. GANDHI PS NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF COMMUNICABLE DISEASES AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
* Author [2024] 6 S.C.R. 484 : 2024 INSC 410 Bar of Indian Lawyers Through its President Jasbir Singh Malik v. D. K. Gandhi PS National Institute of Communicable Diseases and Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 2646 of 2009) 14 May 2024 [Bela M. Trivedi* and Pankaj Mithal,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to 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; whether “Service” hired or availed of an advocate would fall within the definition of “Service” contained in the C.P. Act, 1986/2019; whether the legislature ever intended to include the professions or services rendered by the professionals within the purview of the CP Act 1986 as re-enacted in 2019; whether the legal profession is sui generis; and whether service hired or availed of an advocate could be said to be the service under “contract of personal service” so as to exclude it from the definition of “Service” contained in s. 2(42) of the CP Act 2019. Headnotes† Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Complaint alleging “deficiency in service” against Advocates practising Legal Profession – Maintainability – District Forum held that it had the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute between the parties and decided the complaint in favour of the complainant – However, the State Commission held that the services of lawyers/advocates did not fall within the ambit of “service” defined u/s. 2(1)(o) of the 1986 Act – In Revision, the National Commission held inter alia that if there was any deficiency in service rendered by the Advocates/Lawyers, a complaint under the 1986 Act would be maintainable – Correctness: Held: Services hired or availed of an Advocate would be that of a contract ‘of personal service’ and would thus, stand excluded from the definition of “service” contained in the s. 2(42) of the CP [2024] 6 S.C.R. 485 Bar of Indian Lawyers Through its President Jasbir Singh Malik v. D. K. Gandhi PS National Institute of Communicable Diseases and Anr. Act, 2019 – In view thereof, the complaint alleging “deficiency in service” against Advocates practising legal profession would not be maintainable under the CP Act, 2019 – Thus, the impugned judgment passed by the National Commission set aside [Paras 42, 43] – Held: Per Pankaj Mithal, J. (Concurring) In the era of globalization, a law has to be applied in context with the prevailing situation of the country, nonetheless, on the basis of the common resolution of the UNO, laws must have a uniform application in all nations – It is, thus, essential that the consumer protection laws in all countries may somewhat have universal application and be confined to ‘consumers’ only i.e. to the persons who buys any goods for consideration or hires or avails of any service for consideration, impliedly excluding the professional services especially that of a lawyer – In doing so, in India also the services of professionals more particularly that of lawyers have to be excluded from consumer protection law in accordance with the intention expressed in enacting the same – Legislature in India as in some other countries, had not intended to include the services rendered by the professionals especially the lawyers to their client within the purview of CP Act, 1986 and re-enacted in 2019 – Thus, the view taken by the National Commission that complaint would be maintainable in CP Act, 1986, in respect of deficiency in service rendered by the lawyers, is incorrect and is set aside. [Paras 24-28] Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Legislature, if intended to include the Professions or services rendered by the Professionals within the purview of the CP Act 1986/2019: Held: The very purpose and object of the CP Act 1986 as re- enacted in 2019 was to provide protection to the consumers from unfair trade practices and unethical business practices – Legislature never intended to include either the Professions or the services rendered by the Professionals within the purview of the said Acts – Other object of the Act was to provide to the consumers timely and effective administration and settlement of their disputes arising out of the unfair trade and unethical business practices – If the services provided by all the Professionals are also brought within the purview of the Act, there woul
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.