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.
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.
Comments
Post a Comment