Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2024 (5) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (5) TMI 881 - SC - Indian LawsAs per BELA M. TRIVEDI, J. Service or not - service or hiring or availing of an Advocate - 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 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? - HELD THAT - Considering the intention of the Legislature, the objects and reasons of the Act of 1986 it was repeatedly held that the said Act was enacted to provide for the better protection of the interests of the consumers against their exploitation by the traders and manufacturers of the consumer goods, and to help consumers in getting justice and fair treatment in the matter of goods and services purchased and availed by them in a market dominated by large trading and manufacturing bodies. It is trite to say that a reference to statement of objects and reasons is permissible for understanding the background, the antecedent state of affairs, the surrounding circumstances in relation to the statute, and the evil which the statute had sought to remedy - As discernible from the statement of objects and reasons for re-enacting the CP Act, 2019, there were certain shortcomings found in the CP Act 1986 while administering the said Act, and at the same time, due to the emergence of global supply chains, rise in international trade and rapid development of ecommerce leading to new systems for goods and services, new options and opportunities had become available to the consumers. The very purpose and object of the CP Act 1986 as re-enacted in 2019 was to provide protection to the consumers from the unfair trade practices and unethical business practices only. There is nothing on record to suggest that the Legislature ever intended to include the Professions or the Professionals within the purview of the Act. It is thus well recognized in catena of decisions that the legal profession cannot be equated with any other traditional professions. It is not commercial in nature but is essentially a service oriented, noble profession. It cannot be gainsaid that the role of Advocates is indispensable in the Justice Delivery System. An evolution of jurisprudence to keep our Constitution vibrant is possible only with the positive contribution of the Advocates - That is the reason they are expected to act according to the principles of uberrima fides i.e., the utmost good faith, integrity, fairness and loyalty while handling the legal proceedings of his client. Being a responsible officer of the court and an important adjunct of the administration of justice, an Advocate owes his duty not only to his client but also to the court as well as to the opposite side. Whether the Legal Profession is sui generis? - HELD THAT - The legal profession is different from the other professions also for the reason that what the Advocates do, affects not only an individual but the entire administration of justice, which is the foundation of the civilized society. It must be remembered that the legal profession is a solemn and serious profession. It has always been held in very high esteem because of the stellar role played by the stalwarts in the profession to strengthen the judicial system in the country - having regard to the role, status and duties of the Advocates as the professionals, the legal profession is sui generis i.e unique in nature and cannot be compared with any other profession. Whether a Service hired or availed of an Advocate could be said to be the service under a contract of personal service so as to exclude it from the definition of Service contained in Section 2 (42) of the CP Act 2019? - HELD THAT - Advocate is included in the definition of Legal Practitioner but legal practitioner is not included in the definition of Advocate. Advocate is one who has been entered in any roll under the provisions of the Advocates Act - The disciplinary powers for taking action against the Advocates and impose punishment for their misconduct have been conferred upon the State Bar Councils and Bar Council of India as the case may be under the Chapter V of the Advocates Act. The Bar Council of India Rules framed under the Advocates Act lay down the restrictions on the Senior Advocates, and also lay down the standards of professional conduct and etiquette, which include the duties of the advocate to the Court, to the client, to the opponent and to the colleagues. Thus, comprehensive provisions are contained in the Advocates Act, 1961 and the Bar Council of India Rules framed thereunder, to take care of the professional misconduct of the Advocates, and prescribing the punishments if they are found guilty of professional or other misconduct by the Disciplinary Committees of the State Bar Council or the Bar Council of India as the case may be. This Court in Dharangadhra Chemical Works Ltd. vs. State of Saurashtra and Others 1956 (11) TMI 33 - SUPREME COURT , recognized this position of law and held that the correct method of approach, therefore, would be to consider whether having regard to the nature of the work there was due control and supervision by the employer . As per PANKAJ MITHAL, J. Whether the legal services of the lawyer availed of by the client would be covered under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now Consumer Protection Act, 2019)? - HELD THAT - It is well recognized that the profession of law is a noble profession having an element of duty towards the court. Lawyers perform multi-faceted duties. They not only have a duty towards the client or their opponents but they have a paramount duty to assist the court as well. In a way, they are officers as well as ambassadors of the court. Thus, in rendering such kind of a duty to enable the courts to come to a just conclusion, it may be possible that at times, the lawyers may earn displeasure of the client while assisting the court - The profession of law, as such, is regarded as sui generis i.e. which is unique. It is distinct from all other professions and is one of its own kind. The Consumer Protection Act, 1999 enacted by the Parliament of Malaysia vide Section 2 (2)(e) specifically provides that the said act shall not apply, inter alia, to services provided by professionals who are regulated by any law. It may be worth noting that the services of the professionals such as lawyers in Malaysia are governed by Legal Profession Act, 1976. Therefore, by virtue of the above Section 2 (2) (e), the services provided by the professionals such as lawyers stand excluded from the application of the Consumer Protection Act of Malaysia - It would be trite to mention here that the legal profession is a regulated profession in India. The Advocates Act, 1961 regulates the conduct of lawyers in India and is a complete code in itself. Given the regulation, India also needs to bring the working of its regulated professions in alignment with international practices. The view taken by the NCDRC to the effect that in respect of deficiency in service rendered by the lawyers, a complaint in Consumer Protection Act, 1986 would be maintainable, is incorrect and stands overruled. The impugned order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dated 06.08.2007 is hereby set aside - Appeal disposed off.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether a complaint alleging "deficiency in service" against Advocates practising Legal Profession is maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. 2. Whether the Legal Profession is sui generis. 3. Whether a service hired or availed of an Advocate could be said to be the service under "a contract of personal service." Summary: 1. Maintainability of Complaint Against Advocates under Consumer Protection Act: The Court examined 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 noted that the Consumer Protection Act was enacted to protect consumers from unfair trade practices and unethical business practices, and not to include the services rendered by professionals like Advocates. The legislative intention, as discerned from the history, objects, and reasons of the Act, did not aim to include professions within its purview. The Court concluded that the CP Act was designed to protect consumers in a market dominated by large trading and manufacturing bodies, not to regulate professional services. 2. Legal Profession as Sui Generis: The Court recognized that the legal profession is unique and cannot be compared with other professions. It is a noble profession with a paramount duty towards the court, and Advocates are considered officers of the court. The legal profession is service-oriented, not commercial, and plays a critical role in the justice delivery system. The Court emphasized that the legal profession is distinct due to its role in upholding the rule of law and protecting the independence of the judiciary. Therefore, the legal profession is sui generis. 3. Service under "Contract of Personal Service": The Court analyzed whether the service hired or availed of an Advocate could be considered under "a contract of personal service," which is excluded from the definition of "service" under the CP Act. The relationship between an Advocate and a client involves a considerable amount of control exercised by the client over the Advocate's actions. Advocates owe fiduciary duties to their clients and must follow the client's instructions rather than substitute their judgment. This relationship aligns more with a contract of personal service, thereby excluding it from the CP Act's definition of "service." Conclusion: The Court held that: (i) The CP Act was not intended to include professions or the services rendered by professionals. (ii) The legal profession is sui generis and cannot be compared with other professions. (iii) Services hired or availed of an Advocate fall under "a contract of personal service" and are excluded from the CP Act's definition of "service." (iv) A complaint alleging "deficiency in service" against Advocates is not maintainable under the CP Act, 2019. The impugned judgment of the NCDRC was set aside, and the appeals were allowed accordingly.
|