The Supreme Court held that losing the case on merits after the advocate argued the matter could not be termed as deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act.
A bench of Justices M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna said: “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.”
The bench noted that 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, the person 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,” it said.
The bench declined to entertain an appeal filed by Nandlal Lohariya against refusal of his complaint filed against his three advocates by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the Rajasthan state and Pratapgarh district consumer fora. The petitioner’s counsel had argued before the top court that three advocates have not performed their duties properly, due to which his client’s case was dismissed.
The bench said: “Under the circumstances, the District Forum, the State Commission and the National Commission have rightly dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner herein against the three advocates who appeared on behalf of the petitioner in the aforesaid three complaints which came to be dismissed on merits. There is no substance in the present special leave petitions.”
It noted that 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, 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.
“At the outset, it is required to be noted that as such there is a huge delay of 593 days in preferring the special leave petition against order dated November 25, 2019 Still, we have considered the special leave petitions on merits also,” noted the bench.
