Skip to main content

When Lawyers Play Hardball: The Final Chapter of the Consumer Courts

In the world of legal disputes, the lines between professional conduct and consumer rights sometimes blur, leading to landmark judgments. One such case involved Advocate M. Mathias, his client D.K. Gandhi, and a dishonoured cheque issued by Kamal Sharma.

The Twists and Turns - Bar of Indian Lawyers v. D.K Gandhi & Anr. (SC) 2024

The case began when D.K. Gandhi hired Mathias to file a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act after Kamal Sharma's cheque for Rs.20,000 was dishonoured. Sharma agreed to provide a Demand Draft (DD) of Rs.20,000 and a cheque of Rs.5,000 for expenses. However, Mathias demanded Rs.5,000 in cash from Gandhi and filed a suit claiming this amount as his fee. He later handed Gandhi a DD for Rs.20,000 and a cheque for Rs.5,000, which Sharma stopped at Mathias's request. Gandhi then sought Rs.15,000 in compensation, including Rs.10,000 for mental agony, from the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Delhi.

 Legal Battles: Forum to Forum

Mathias argued that the District Consumer Forum lacked jurisdiction over advocates. The District Forum ruled in Gandhi's favour, prompting Mathias to appeal to the State Commission, which ruled that legal services did not constitute "service" under the Consumer Protection Act (CP Act), 1986, re-enacted in 2019. Gandhi then took the matter to the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), overturning the State Commission's decision. Mathias and various legal bodies appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court’s Landmark Judgment

In the present case of Bar of Indian Lawyers v. D.K. Gandhi, the Supreme Court ruled on May 14, 2024, that:

§  The Consumer Protection Act, aimed at protecting consumers from unfair trade practices, never intended to include professions or professional services.

§  The legal profession is unique ("sui generis") and cannot be compared to other professions.

§  Services provided by advocates are considered under a "contract of personal service," excluded from the CP Act.

§  Complaints alleging “deficiency in service” against advocates are not maintainable under the CP Act.

The Court also suggested revisiting the Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha, (1995) 6 SCC 651 case regarding doctors' services and referred to Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India.

The Supreme Court clarified that professionals, including lawyers and doctors, are not immune from civil or criminal liability for misconduct. While governed by respective councils, they can still be held accountable for professional negligence. However, the CP Act is not the appropriate venue for such grievances.

This case is a testament to the evolving nature of legal interpretations and the ongoing debate over consumer rights and professional obligations. It also serves as a reminder that while advocates/ lawyers are subject to scrutiny and liability, the mechanisms for addressing grievances must align with the unique nature of their services. 

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Maintenance Charges Default: No Water, No Sympathy

In what can only be described as a case of forum shopping (trying to find the friendliest court), an apartment owner in Shiv Vihar CHS, Dombivali (East), took his complaints on a legal tour. The petitioner, Vilas Gopal Dongare member of the society was unhappy. Why? Because his water supply was cut off. The reason? He had not paid his maintenance bills, which had piled up to a whopping Rs. 7 Lakhs! Despite making several complaints about the alleged harassment by the society and even a water tank causing structural issues in his building, his cries were heard and promptly dismissed. The Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission looked into his case and, on 05.02.2020, decided it was not a human rights violation. They said, “Pay your bills first.” The society initiated proceedings under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (MCS Act) to recover arrears and got a Recovery Certificate issued in its favour. When the petitioner’s appeal against this certificate wa...
Post a Comment
Read more

AMORTISED COST CALCULATION: THE EFFECTIVE INTEREST RATE (EIR)

IAS 39 mandates some financial assets and liabilities to be subsequently measured at ‘amortized cost’.  This measurement concept is a management theory put in accounting practice. It means that the contractual interest rate each period should be adjusted to amortize the transaction costs over the expected life of the financial instrument. The amortization is calculated on an effective interest rate (EIR) / yield-to-maturity (YTM) basis. The EIR is the rate that exactly discounts the stream of principal and interest cash flows excluding any impact of credit losses, to the initial net proceeds. It is important to note that EIR method does not take into account any future credit impairments anticipated on that instrument. The carrying amount of the financial instrument subsequently measured at amortized cost is computed as: Transaction costs are an integral part of the amortized cost calculation. They are defined as costs that are directly attributable to the acquisit...
49 comments
Read more

Court Upholds Co-operative Membership Transfer with Release Deed

In the case of Bima Nagar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. Divisional Joint Registrar & Ors. WP 10768 of 2024 , the Bombay High Court on 23.09.2024 dismissed the society’s petition challenging the membership transfer to Pushpa Morey, a widow, following her husband's death. Initially, Pushpa was granted provisional membership but was later denied full membership by the society. Pushpa applied for full membership after her husband's passing. When the society refused, she sought help from the Deputy Registrar, who ordered that the society admit her as a full member under Section 22(2) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The society’s appeal to the Divisional Joint Registrar was unsuccessful, prompting the writ petition in the Bombay High Court. The society argued that the "family arrangement" concept under Section 154B-13 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act applies only to a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). Pushpa, however, contended tha...
2 comments
Read more