Top
Begin typing your search above and press return to search.
Top Stories

Advocate Losing A Case After Arguing Is Not 'Deficiency Of Service' For Filing Consumer Complaint: Supreme Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
11 Nov 2021 7:49 AM GMT
Advocate Losing A Case After Arguing Is Not Deficiency Of Service For Filing Consumer Complaint: Supreme Court
x

The Supreme Court observed that an advocate losing a case cannot be said to be deficiency in service on his/her part."In every litigation, either of the party is bound to lose and in such a situation either of the party who will lose in the litigation may approach the consumer fora for compensation alleging deficiency in service, which is not permissible at all", the bench comprising Justices...

Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
599+GST
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.
  • Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Already a subscriber?

The Supreme Court observed that an advocate losing a case cannot be said to be deficiency in service on his/her part.

"In every litigation, either of the party is bound to lose and in such a situation either of the party who will lose in the litigation may approach the consumer fora for compensation alleging deficiency in service, which is not permissible at all", the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed while dismissing a Special Leave Petition filed against the order passed by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

The court observed that such complaints may lie only in a case where it is found that there was any deficiency in service by the advocate.

In this case, Nandlal Lohariya filed a complaint before the District Forum through his three advocates against BSNL. All the three complaints came to be dismissed by the District Forum on merits. That after dismissal of the complaints, Lohariya filed a complaint against these three advocates alleging deficiency in service on their part in contesting his cases before the District Forum and claimed for a compensation of Rs.15 lakhs. This complaint was dismissed by the District Forum and this order was later upheld by the State and National Consumer Redressal Commission.

While considering the special leave petition filed against the NCDRC order, the court noted that the complaints against BSNL came to be dismissed on merits and there was no negligence on the part of the advocates at all. Therefore, the court observed, it cannot be said that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the advocates who appeared on behalf of the complainant and lost on merit. The bench observed thus:

"4.1 Once it is found and held that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the advocates, the complaint filed by the petitioner – complainant against the three advocates was liable to be dismissed and is rightly dismissed by the District Forum and the same has been rightly confirmed by the State Commission and thereafter by the National Commission. Only in a case where it is found that there was any deficiency in service by the advocate, there may be some case. In each and every case where a litigant has lost on merits and there is no negligence on the part of the advocate/s, it cannot be said that there was any deficiency in service by the advocate/s. If the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner is accepted, in that case, in each and every case where a litigant has lost on merits and his case is dismissed, he will approach the consumer fora and pray for compensation alleging deficiency in service. Losing the case on merits after the advocate argued the matter cannot be said to be deficiency in service on the part of the advocate. In every litigation, either of the party is bound to lose and in such a situation either of the party who will lose in the litigation may approach the consumer fora for compensation alleging deficiency in service, which is not permissible at all."

Holding thus, the bench dismissed the SLP.

Case name and Citation: Nandlal Lohariya  vs Jagdish Chand Purohit LL 2021 SC 636

Case no. and Date: SLP (Diary) 24842 OF 2021 |  8 November 2021

Coram: Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna

Click here to Read/Download Order


Next Story
Share it