D K GANDHI Vs. M MATHIAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State Commission, Delhi, by its order dated 10.3.2006 in Appeal No.1815 of 2000 held that the services rendered by the Lawyer would not come within the ambit of Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as the client executes the power of attorney authorizing the Counsel to do certain acts on his behalf and there is no term of contract as to the liability of the lawyer in case he fails to do any such act. The State Commission further observed that it is a unilateral contract executed by the client giving authority to the lawyer to appear and represent the matter on his behalf without any specific assurance or undertaking. Against that order the Complainant has preferred this Revision Petition. Findigns:

(2.) IN our view, the reasoning given by the State Commission is totally erroneous. The ambit and scope of Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act which defines "service" is very wide and by this time well established. It covers all services except rendering of services free of charge or a contract of personal service. Undisputedly, lawyers are rendering service. They are charging fees. It is not a contract of personal service. Therefore, there is no reason to hold that they are not covered by the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. The State Commission approached the question totally in an erroneous manner by holding that by executing power of attorney the client authorizes the Lawyer to do certain acts on his behalf and there is no term of contract as to the liability of the lawyer in case he fails to do such act. It is to be stated that a Lawyer may not be responsible for the favourable outcome of a case as the result/out come does not depend upon only on lawyers" work. But, if there is deficiency in rendering services promised, for which consideration in the form of fee is received by him, then the lawyers can be proceeded against under the Consumer Protection Act. Further, it is totally erroneous to hold that it is a unilateral contract executed by the client by giving authority to the lawyer to appear and represent the matter. Apparently, it is a bilateral contract between the client and the lawyer, and, that too, on receipt of fees, lawyer would appear and represent the matter on behalf of his client. To hold that contract is unilateral is to ignore the fact that even after discussion the client may not engage the Advocate or the Advocate may refuse to accept the brief. Hence, such a contract can never be said to be unilateral. Further, it is not necessary to refer to judgments on this well settled law, still, we would refer to the case of Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta, (1994) 1 SCC 243 , at pages 254-255, wherein the Apex Court observed as under:

(3.) THE Court held that the importance of the Act lies in promoting welfare of the society inasmuch as it attempts to remove the helplessness of a consumer as he faces against powerful business; "producers have secured power" to "rob the rest". The might of public bodies which are degenerating into storehouses of inaction where papers do not move from one desk to another as a matter of duty and responsibility but for extraneous consideration leaving the common man helpless and shocked. To what extent the aforesaid observations apply to various professions in the country is to be imagined and it is a matter of guess work.