Advocate losing a case is not ‘deficiency in service’: SC
2-judge bench said the losing party can’t drag a lawyer to a consumer forum
New Delhi, Nov.11 (Delhi Crown): Dismissing a special leave petition (SLP), a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court on Thursday said that no lawyer should be accused of deficiency of service or breach of trust after he, or she, loses a legal case before any court.
Justices M. R. Shah and B. V. Nagarathna, while hearing the petition filed against a 2019 order passed by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), said, “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.”
Thursday’s ruling came in response to Nandlal Lohariya, a resident of Pratapgarh in Rajasthan, filing a complaint before the district consumer redressal forum against three lawyers who had represented him in a case against state-run telecommunications service provider, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) in between 2014 and 2015.
Lohariya had charged his advocates with ‘deficiency in service’ while contesting his cases before the district forum and demanded Rs.15 lakh as compensation. The district forum, however, dismissed his complaint as having no merit, and this judgment was also upheld by the State and the National Consumer Redressal Commission.
Lohariya then approached the Supreme Court against the NCDRC order, which also ruled that the three advocates had not been negligent at all.
The apex court bench ruled 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 – 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.”
The court further opined that, “…in each and every case where a litigant has lost on merits and his case is dismissed, he 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.”
The case against BSNL dates back to 2014 and 2015. Lohariya had approached the district consumer redressal forum in Pratapgarh to rule against BSNL. The forum dismissed Lohariya’s plea as having no merit on June 30, 2016.
Lohariya again approached the district forum with a fresh complaint, this time against his three lawyers’– Jagdish Chand Purohit, Murlidhar Jat and Gopal Lal Sharma — citing that all three had taken almost two years to file his complaints against BSNL and had failed to collect relevant data pertaining to the case. This, he claimed, was a dereliction of duty on their part.
The district forum in Pratapgarh again ruled on July 13, 2018 that Lohariya’s complaint had no merit. Lohariya then took the matter to the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, which also dismissed his plea on August 31, 2018. He then approached the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in New Delhi, which too rejected his complaint on November 25, 2019.
