K VISHNU Vs. NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The second respondent herein filed a complaint before the National Consumer Redressal Commission (first respondent, hereinafter referred to as the 'Commission') against the petitioner who is an Advocate practising at Eluru seeking compensation of Rs. 19,98,000.00 and seeking return of the records and material papers in RCC No. 16 of 1987 and four other cases together with no objection endorsement on vakalats. The gist of the complaint is that the petitioner failed to extend the services expected of him in ensuring the implementation of interim order passed by the Rent Controller and in conducting various cases pending in the Court of Rent Controller and other Civil Courts in Eluru, that he did not hand over the case records despite the payment of settled fee nor did he give no objection certificate, thereby preventing him from conducting the cases either personally or through other Advocates. In the process, he had to suspend the business. The respondent goes to the extent of alleging that the petitioner persuaded him to give a share in his business and on his refusal to do so, he started harassing him. A fabulous sum of Rs. 19,98,000.00 is claimed as compensation for the "loss of prestige, mental agony, torture and loss of business caused by the opposite party." The complaint was registered as O.P. No. 1 of 1991 and a notice was issued by the first respondent-Commission on 7-1-1991. Thereupon, the present writ petition was filed seeking a writ of prohibition prohibiting the Commission from proceeding with O.P. No. 1 of 1991. It is the contention of the petitioner that the professional services of a legal practitioner are outside the ambit of Consumer Protection Act. This Court stayed the proceedings and directed notice to the A.P. Bar Council and A.P. High Court Advocates Association and the Advocate-General. A Division Bench of this Court adjourned the writ petition on the ground that some matters having bearing on the present case were pending in the Supreme Court. At last, after a lapse of nine years, this case is being disposed of. In fact, the contention raised by the petitioner as regards the applicability of the Act and jurisdiction of the Commission to deal with the case could have been raised before the Commission itself which is presided over by a retired Judge of the Supreme Court. Anyway, as the case has been pending for so many years and a Division Bench felt that the case is of sufficient importance to be dealt with by this Court, we do not want to adopt that course at this stage and we would like to deal with the core contention raised before us on merits.

(2.) The Consumer Protection Act was enacted by the Parliament in response to a popular demand to provide for better protection of interests of Consumers. The Act makes provision for the settlement of consumer disputes. A consumer can make complaint of any deficiency in the service. The expression 'complaint' insofar as it is relevant according to S. 2(c) means an allegation in writing that the services hired or availed of or agreed to be hired or availed of by the complainant, suffered from deficiencies in any respect. Amongst others a consumer according to Cl. (ii) of S. 2(d), includes a person who hires or avails of any service including any beneficiary of such service for consideration. A person who buys any goods for consideration is also a consumer within the meaning of Cl. (i). What is meant by 'deficiency' is spelt out by S. 2(g).Deficiency means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service.The definition of 'consumer' insofar as it is relevant is as follows :- Section 2(d) -"Consumer" means any person who-(i) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(ii) hires any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires the services for consideration paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with approval of the first mentioned person.

(3.) Thus, we have a comprehensive definition of the term 'service' and its wide amplitude is denoted by the phrase "service of any description." After illustrating various services comprehended within the scope of 'service', the definition proceeds to exclude service rendered free of charge or under a contract of personal service. What is the nature and meaning of contract of personal service has been explained in Indian Medical Association v. V. P. Shantha, AIR 1996 SC 550 and in Dr. A. S. Chandra v. Union of India, (1992) 1 ALT 713.