Manupatra

Fill in the following details to e-mail

Subject

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head> </head> <body> <div style="font-family:Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size:12px; text-align:justify"> <table width="800" border="0" style="border:1px solid #ccc;padding:5px;" align="center" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top"> Supreme Court Losing the case on merits after the advocate argued the matter is not deficiency in service on the part of the advocate for filing consumer complaint MANU/SC/1063/2021 - (08 Nov 2021) </td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Nandlal Lohariya Vs. Jagdish Chand Purohit and other</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" style="background-color:#FDEDCE">The Petitioner filed three complaints before the District Forum through his three advocates against BSNL. All the three complaints came to be dismissed by the District Forum on merits. That after dismissal of the complaints, the Petitioner herein 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 have not performed their duties properly. The said complaints were also filed with delay of 365 to 630 days. 
The Petitioner claimed for a compensation of Rs.15 lakhs from the advocates alleging deficiency in service in contesting the three complaints which were dismissed. The said complaint filed against the three advocates came to be dismissed by the District Forum. The appeal preferred by the petitioner herein before the State Commission also came to be dismissed, which was the subject matter of the revision petition before the National Commission. By the impugned judgment, the learned National Commission has dismissed the said revision petition, as also, the review application. 
The District Forum, the State Commission and the National Commission have rightly dismissed the complaint filed by the Petitioner. There are no observations by the District Forum against the advocates that, there was any negligence on the part of the advocates in prosecuting and/or conducting the complaints. In the common order, it has been specifically observed by the District Forum that, the allegations in the complaints are not proved and due to which all the three complaints are liable to be dismissed. 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. 
 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 – complainant against the three advocates 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. 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. 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. 
Under the circumstances, the District Forum, the State Commission and the National Commission have rightly dismissed the complaint filed by the Petitioner 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. Petitions dismissed.</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" ></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" >Tags : Deficiency in service, Complaint, Maintainability</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr>  <td align="left" valign="top">Source : newsroom.manupatra.com</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Regards</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Team Manupatra</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> </table> </div> </body> </html>