Supreme Court Dismisses Consumer Complaint Against Advocates for Deficiency in Service

The case of Nandlal Lohariya v. Jagdish Chand Purohit & Ors. involved a consumer complaint filed against three advocates for alleged deficiency in service. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, ruling that merely losing a case does not constitute deficiency in service on the part of an advocate. The Court further emphasized that consumer forums are not the appropriate platform for grievances arising from unsuccessful litigation outcomes.

The judgment sets an important precedent by clarifying that professional negligence must be established with evidence, and not merely inferred from the outcome of a case.

Background of the Case

Nandlal Lohariya, the petitioner, had earlier filed three consumer complaints against Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (District Forum). These cases were dismissed on merits. Following this, the petitioner filed a complaint against the three advocates who had represented him in the consumer cases, alleging that they had not performed their duties properly and seeking compensation of Rs. 15 lakhs for deficiency in service.

The complaint against the advocates was also dismissed by the District Forum. The petitioner appealed before the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (State Commission), which upheld the dismissal. Subsequently, he approached the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (National Commission), which again dismissed his appeal. Finally, he filed a special leave petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court.

Arguments by the Petitioner

Nandlal Lohariya, representing himself, argued:

The three advocates who appeared for him before the District Forum did not effectively argue his case.
Their failure to secure a favorable judgment constituted deficiency in service.
He had suffered financial loss due to their negligence and was entitled to compensation.

Arguments by the Respondents

The respondent advocates contended:

There was no evidence of negligence or deficiency in service.
The petitioner’s cases were dismissed on merits, and the judgments did not indicate any fault on the part of the lawyers.
If every litigant who loses a case were to file a consumer complaint against their lawyer, it would set a dangerous precedent.

Supreme Court’s Judgment

The Supreme Court, comprising Justices M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, ruled in favor of the respondent advocates and dismissed the petition, stating:

“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.”

The Court further observed:

“If the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner is accepted, in that case, in each and every case where a litigant has lost on merits, he will approach the consumer fora and pray for compensation alleging deficiency in service, which is not permissible at all.”

The Court noted that there were no observations in the judgments of the consumer forums that suggested any professional negligence on the part of the advocates. It stated:

“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.”

Additionally, the Supreme Court pointed out that the special leave petition was filed with a delay of 593 days and that there were no valid reasons to condone such a delay.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling reinforces that professional negligence must be proven with concrete evidence and cannot be presumed merely because a case was lost. The judgment protects legal professionals from frivolous consumer complaints while ensuring that genuine instances of negligence can still be addressed through appropriate legal channels.

Petitioner Name: Nandlal Lohariya.
Respondent Name: Jagdish Chand Purohit & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice M.R. Shah, Justice B.V. Nagarathna.
Place Of Incident: Pratapgarh, Rajasthan.
Judgment Date: 08-11-2021.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: nandlal-lohariya-vs-jagdish-chand-purohi-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-08-11-2021.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Legal Malpractice
See all petitions in Judgment by Mukeshkumar Rasikbhai Shah
See all petitions in Judgment by B.V. Nagarathna
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments November 2021
See all petitions in 2021 judgments

See all posts in Defamation Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Defamation Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Defamation Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Defamation Cases Category