What are liability of an advocate towards the society and court?
Answers
Answered by
0
With the advent of the later half of the eighteenth century (1760), came the golden period of Industrial Revolution with its far-reaching impulses on the lives of human beings. Thus were laid down the foundations of trade and commerce for the benefit of the common man and the profits from which made a million of millionaires and scores of billionaires. Gradually, under the veil of trade and commerce, unscrupulous elements began to fool the innocent consumer and consequently, there came the present age-the age of consumerism.
Keeping in view the interest of the innocent buyer of goods and user of services, Parliament of India enacted the Consumer Protection Act in 1986 to safeguard such interests. By its ever-increasing reach with the help of a plethora of judicial pronouncements of the National Commission and the Supreme Court, the Act has now become very popular among citizens. This Act serves as a check against the seller of goods and service providers from selling or providing the consumer with faulty goods or services respectively.
However, recent developments are indicators of an oncoming state of chaos when the ambit of the Act has been unnecessarily stretched to a forbidden territory by holding lawyers liable for deficiency in service under the aforesaid Act. For a detailed discussion on this issue one has to observe the judgment of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the case of D.K.Gandhi v/s M.Mathias, in Revision Petition No. 1392 of 2006, pronounced on 6th August 2007
FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF : D.K.Gandhi v/s M.Mathias, in Revision Petition No. 1392 of 2006, pronounced on 6th August 2007
D.K Gandhi had engaged the professional service of M.Mathias, a lawyer. In a subsequent dispute, Gandhi alleged negligence on the part of Mathias and filed a consumer complaint against him in the District Consumer Forum. The matter went before the Delhi Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Appeal No.1815 of 2000, which observed in its order dated 10. 03. 2006 that a complaint against a lawyer would be beyond the province of the Consumer Protection Act.
The reasons for such gainsaying were as follows:
Firstly, that in an advocate-client relationship the client executes the power of attorney to his advocate to do certain acts on his behalf, but nothing is stated in the contract or power of attorney as to what would be the liability of the advocate incase of his failure to act.
Secondly, the contract giving rise to the above relationship is a unilateral contract executed by the client giving authority to the lawyer to appear and represent the matter on his behalf without any specific assurance or undertaking and,
Thirdly, there is no term of contract whereby such power of attorney is executed to the advocate.
Dissatisfied with the order of the State Commission, Gandhi filed a Revision Petition before the National Commission challenging the interpretation by the former. The National Commission in its judgment dated 6th August 2007 banished the reasoning of the State Commission by holding it totally erroneous. As per its pronouncement, when a party engages a lawyer, there comes into operation a bilateral contract where the lawyer renders services in consideration for the fees, which he receives. It held the definition of ‘service’ as very wide and capable of bringing lawyers and other professionals under its domain and ruling on the maintainability of the complaint, the National Commission remanded the matter back to the State Commission for deciding the merits of the allegations.
Keeping in view the interest of the innocent buyer of goods and user of services, Parliament of India enacted the Consumer Protection Act in 1986 to safeguard such interests. By its ever-increasing reach with the help of a plethora of judicial pronouncements of the National Commission and the Supreme Court, the Act has now become very popular among citizens. This Act serves as a check against the seller of goods and service providers from selling or providing the consumer with faulty goods or services respectively.
However, recent developments are indicators of an oncoming state of chaos when the ambit of the Act has been unnecessarily stretched to a forbidden territory by holding lawyers liable for deficiency in service under the aforesaid Act. For a detailed discussion on this issue one has to observe the judgment of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the case of D.K.Gandhi v/s M.Mathias, in Revision Petition No. 1392 of 2006, pronounced on 6th August 2007
FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF : D.K.Gandhi v/s M.Mathias, in Revision Petition No. 1392 of 2006, pronounced on 6th August 2007
D.K Gandhi had engaged the professional service of M.Mathias, a lawyer. In a subsequent dispute, Gandhi alleged negligence on the part of Mathias and filed a consumer complaint against him in the District Consumer Forum. The matter went before the Delhi Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Appeal No.1815 of 2000, which observed in its order dated 10. 03. 2006 that a complaint against a lawyer would be beyond the province of the Consumer Protection Act.
The reasons for such gainsaying were as follows:
Firstly, that in an advocate-client relationship the client executes the power of attorney to his advocate to do certain acts on his behalf, but nothing is stated in the contract or power of attorney as to what would be the liability of the advocate incase of his failure to act.
Secondly, the contract giving rise to the above relationship is a unilateral contract executed by the client giving authority to the lawyer to appear and represent the matter on his behalf without any specific assurance or undertaking and,
Thirdly, there is no term of contract whereby such power of attorney is executed to the advocate.
Dissatisfied with the order of the State Commission, Gandhi filed a Revision Petition before the National Commission challenging the interpretation by the former. The National Commission in its judgment dated 6th August 2007 banished the reasoning of the State Commission by holding it totally erroneous. As per its pronouncement, when a party engages a lawyer, there comes into operation a bilateral contract where the lawyer renders services in consideration for the fees, which he receives. It held the definition of ‘service’ as very wide and capable of bringing lawyers and other professionals under its domain and ruling on the maintainability of the complaint, the National Commission remanded the matter back to the State Commission for deciding the merits of the allegations.
Similar questions