State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Smt. Rajni Devi vs Sh. Hoshiar Singh Rangra & Anr. on 24 June, 2024
H. P. ST AT E CONSUMER D ISPUTES REDRESS AL
CO MMISSION SHIML A.
First Appeal No. : 178/2023
Date of Presentation :07.08.2023
Order Reserved on :17.06.2024
Date of Order :24.06.2024
_____
Smt.Rajni Devi Wife of Sh. Deshraj R/o Village Lower Chauntra,
Tehsil Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P.
...... Appellant/Complainant.
Versus
1. Sh.Hoshiar Singh Rangra, Advocate, High Court of H.P. at
Shimla, H.P. 171001.
2. Sh.Sant Ram Badhan, Advocate, District Courts Complex
Mandi, H .P. 175001.
.....Respondents/Opposite Parties.
Coram
Hon'ble Justice Inder Singh Mehta, President
Hon'ble Mr.R.K. Verma, Member.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the Appellant: SPA Mr. Des Raj in person.
For the Respondent No.1: Mr.Pradeep Kumar Gupta,
Advocate.
For the Respondent No.2: None.
1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order?
Smt.Rajni Devi Versus Sh.Hoshiar Singh Rangra & Anr.
(F.A. No.178/2023)
Per R.K.Verma, Member.
ORDER
Instant appeal is arising out of the order dated 21.07.2023 passed by Learned District Consumer Commission, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. in Consumer Complaint No.113/2021 titled Smt. Rajni Devi versus Sh. Hoshiar Singh Rangra & Anr.
Brief facts of Case:
2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant had engaged the opposite party No.1 Sh. Hoshiar Singh Rangra as her counsel before the Hon'ble High Court of H.P. to pursue RSA (Regular Second Appeal) No.130 of 2015.
The complainant had paid ₹25,000/- to the opposite party No.1/Advocate as settled fee through opposite party No.2 Mr.Sant Ram Badhan, Advocate, who is practicing as a lawyer at District Court, Mandi. The complainant used to pay ₹2,000/- per month to the opposite party No.1/Advocate since 2015. On 06.04.2015, the Hon'ble High Court of H.P. had stayed the execution of the judgment and decree 2 Smt.Rajni Devi Versus Sh.Hoshiar Singh Rangra & Anr.
(F.A. No.178/2023) passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Mandi in Civil Appeal No.8 of 2014 dated 25.11.2014. Despite the aforesaid stay order, the defendants/respondents in the aforesaid case willfully disobeyed the order of status quo passed by the Hon'ble High Court of H.P. These facts were brought to the notice of the opposite party No.1/Advocate by the complainant and to file contempt petition, but the opposite party/Advocate did not file any contempt petition against the contemnor and kept on prolonging the matter on one or the other pretext. The defendants/respondents in the aforesaid Civil Appeal changed the revenue entries. As a result, the complainant suffered irreparable loss. Thereafter, the complainant changed her counsel and requested the Advocate to return her case file. The opposite party No.1/Advocate refused to recognize the complainant and stated that he was having no concern with the complainant. There was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, the present complaint. 3
Smt.Rajni Devi Versus Sh.Hoshiar Singh Rangra & Anr.
(F.A. No.178/2023)
3. The opposite party No.1/Advocate contested the complaint by filing a reply and admitted the fact that the complainant had entrusted to him the file of RSA No.130 of 2015 pending before the Hon'ble High Court of H.P. The execution of Power of Attorney by the opposite party No.1/Advocate in the aforesaid RSA No.130/2015 was a contract of personal service, as a result, it would not fall within the definition of service for the purpose of Consumer Protection Act. The complainant did not provide any evidence to him regarding the alleged contempt of Court by the defendants in the Civil Appeal. So, he was not able to file any contempt petition. A prayer was made to dismiss the complaint.
4. The opposite party No.2 was served, but none had appeared on behalf of the opposite party No.2. Therefore, opposite party No.2 was proceeded against ex- parte.
5. The complainant filed rejoinder to the reply filed 4 Smt.Rajni Devi Versus Sh.Hoshiar Singh Rangra & Anr.
(F.A. No.178/2023) by the opposite party No.1/Advocate, wherein she denied the objections taken by the opposite party No.1 and further reasserted the averments already made in the complaint.
6. Thereafter, the parties adduced evidence in support of their respective pleadings.
7. After hearing learned counsel of the parties, learned District Commission dismissed the complaint of the complainant.
8. Feeling aggrieved by the order of learned District Commission, the appellant/complainant preferred the instant appeal before this Commission.
9. We have heard SPA of the appellant and counsel for the respondent No.1, perused the written arguments filed on behalf of the appellant/complainant and have gone through the record carefully.
10. SPA of the appellant Mr.Des Raj has submitted that the impugned order is bad in law and prays that the 5 Smt.Rajni Devi Versus Sh.Hoshiar Singh Rangra & Anr.
(F.A. No.178/2023) appeal of the appellant/complainant be allowed and impugned order be set aside.
11. On the other hand, learned counsel of the respondent No.1/Advocate has submitted that the law is very settled that services of an Advocate are not covered under the Consumer Protection Act. He further submitted that the impugned order does not require any interference and prays that the appeal of the appellant/complainant be dismissed. FINDINGS
12. The admitted fact which emerges on record is that the appellant had engaged the respondent No.1 through the respondent No.2 as her counsel to pursue RSA No.130/2015. The appellant/complainant has alleged deficiency of service on the part of the respondents in prosecution of her case. According to her, the services rendered by the Advocate to his client are covered under Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
13. The respondents have resisted the claim of the appellant on the ground that the services rendered by the 6 Smt.Rajni Devi Versus Sh.Hoshiar Singh Rangra & Anr.
(F.A. No.178/2023) Advocates to his client are not covered under Consumer Protection Act and as such the complaint filed by the appellant/complainant is not maintainable.
14. In view of the rival contentions of the parties, the short question that arises for consideration in this case is whether the legal services of the lawyer availed by client would be covered under Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This question came up for consideration recently before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled Bar of Indian Lawyers vs D.K.Ghandhi, Civil Appeal No.2646 of 2009 decided on May 14, 2024 and the Hon'ble Apex Court after noticing its earlier judgment in Lucknow Development Authority vs M.K.Gupta, AIR 1994 SC 787, upon which the appellant has placed reliance in the present appeal, held that services rendered by the professionals especially the lawyers to their client are not included within the purview of Consumer Protection Act,1986 and re-enacted in 2019 and a complaint alleging 'deficiency in service' against Advocates practicing 7 Smt.Rajni Devi Versus Sh.Hoshiar Singh Rangra & Anr.
(F.A. No.178/2023) Legal Profession would not be maintainable under Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
15. This case is squarely covered by the ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bar of Indian Lawyers case (supra). Consequently, the instant complaint filed by the complainant against the respondent Advocates is not maintainable.
16. In view of the above stated facts, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by learned District Commission below and same does not require any interference. Accordingly, appeal of the appellant/ complainant fails and same is hereby dismissed and the impugned order remains upheld.
17. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
18. Certified copy of order be sent to the parties and their counsel(s) strictly as per rules. File of District Commission alongwith certified copy of order be sent back and file of State Commission be consigned to record room 8 Smt.Rajni Devi Versus Sh.Hoshiar Singh Rangra & Anr.
(F.A. No.178/2023) after due completion. Appeal is disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also disposed of.
Justice Inder Singh Mehta President R.K.Verma Member Veena 9