An advocate losing a case after arguing it on merits and due to no negligence on his part cannot be construed as ‘deficiency in service’ for which a consumer complaint can lie, the Supreme Court has held (Nandlal Lohariya v. Jagdish Chand Purohit and others).
A Bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna said that in every litigation, either of the party is bound to lose and in such a situation, it is not permissible for the party who loses the case to approach consumer forum claiming deficiency in service on the part of his advocate, reports Bar and Bench.
“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, it cannot be said that there was any deficiency in service by the advocate. 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,” the Court said.
The order was passed on an appeal filed by one Nandlal Lohariya against a decision of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) confirming the orders passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (State Commission) and the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pratapgarh (District Commission) dismissing the consumer complaint of the petitioner.
The case stemmed from three consumer complaints filed by the petitioner before the District Commission against Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL).
All the three complaints came to be dismissed by the District Commission on merits.
After dismissal of the complaints, the petitioner filed a complaint against the three advocates who appeared on behalf of the petitioner in the aforesaid three complaints alleging deficiency in service on their part in contesting his cases before the District Forum.
It was alleged that all the three advocates had not performed their duties properly. The said complaints were also filed with delay of 365 to 630 days. The petitioner claimed a compensation of ?15 lakh from the advocates alleging deficiency in service in contesting the three complaints which were dismissed.
The complaints against the advocates were also dismissed by the District Commission and the same was confirmed by the State Commission and the NCDRC.
The Supreme Court after hearing the petitioner’s counsel Viraat Tripathi, held that the decision of the NCDRC requires no intervention.
“We are of the firm opinion that the District Forum, the State Commission and the National Commission have rightly dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner filed against the three advocates who appeared on behalf of the petitioner in the aforesaid three complaints, which as such were dismissed on merits. There are no observations by the District Commission against the advocates that there was any negligence on the part of the advocates in prosecuting and/or conducting the complaints,” the top court said.
Once the complaints came to be dismissed on merits and there was no negligence on the part of the advocates at all, 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 merits, the Court emphasised.
