2000 (3) TMI 1022 - Commission - Companies Law

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Professional negligence and misconduct by the appellant advocate.
2. Jurisdiction of Consumer Forums over professional negligence of advocates.
3. Evaluation of evidence and material on record to establish professional negligence.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Professional Negligence and Misconduct by the Appellant Advocate:
The complainant, a tenant, had engaged the appellant, an advocate, to represent him in a writ petition before the High Court. The complainant alleged that the appellant impersonated another advocate, did not properly represent his case, and failed to press for contempt proceedings against the landlady. The District Forum found the appellant guilty of professional negligence and ordered compensation and costs. However, upon appeal, it was held that the appellant had acted based on the complainant's instructions, and the High Court's order was in favor of the complainant. The appellant had consulted the complainant and followed the court's suggestion, which was accepted by the complainant. No evidence was found to support the allegations of impersonation or negligence.

2. Jurisdiction of Consumer Forums Over Professional Negligence of Advocates:
The judgment clarified that advocates, like other professionals, offer services for consideration and thus fall under the definition of 'service' in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Despite the existence of the Advocates Act, 1961, Consumer Forums have jurisdiction to entertain complaints against advocates for professional negligence, as per Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, which states that the provisions of the Act are in addition to and not in derogation of any other law.

3. Evaluation of Evidence and Material on Record to Establish Professional Negligence:
The court emphasized that professional negligence must be established with sufficient evidence. In this case, the appellant provided a detailed account of the proceedings before the High Court, which was not disputed by the complainant. The High Court's order did not reference the contempt proceedings, and the appellant had acted upon the complainant's consent. The District Forum had overlooked these crucial details, leading to an erroneous judgment. The appellate court found that the complainant failed to prove professional negligence or misconduct by the appellant.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed, and the order of the District Forum was set aside. The complaint against the appellant was dismissed, and the parties were directed to bear their own costs. The judgment highlighted the need for Consumer Forums to carefully scrutinize and consider all material facts and evidence before arriving at a decision.