This is a petition filed by one Jamilur Rahman Laskar, a practicing  lawyer against his client opp.party Abinash Borah claiming relief under Consumer Protection Act, 1986. He, who claimed to have rendered professional service to the opp.party in respect of a lot of petition /complaint from F.I.R. to complaint, writ petition, complaint to Assam Police Accountability Commission , Bail petition and conducting this cases in various office and courts etc.

     It is mentioned in the complaint petition filed by the complainant  under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is that the opp.party have not paid his professional fees of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees eight lakhs)only as outstanding amount who always promised to pay later on.

        It is submitted further in the petition that for the negligent attitude of the opp.party  his family life has been absolutely damaged and his marriage got dissolved and now his two little girls leaves in Hailakandi with their mother .  He used to attend court  regularly at Tezpur from Guwahati  from July 2019 till date.  The opp.party denied to pay his professional fees .

              We have carefully gone through the contention made in the complaint petition where it is clear that a lawyer rendered  services on the basis of a payment of fees in cash or promised to pay under deferred payment. The complainant being a lawyer rendered his professional service towards the opp.party. The opp.party Sri Abinash Borah by profession a builder working in Tezpur approached the complainant in Guwahati who earnestly requested to provide legal service on his behalf . Accordingly, the complainant used to attend the various courts. He press for his professional fees from the opp.party  and the opp.party paid Rs.1,00,000/- only out of Rs. 9,00,000/- being the professional fees.

      On record no  vakalatnama engaging the complainant and others is found   to show that there were any bilateral contract between the complainant and the opp.party. We have considered the provision of Sec. 2 (I)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

      To our humble opinion complainant himself was a service provider and opp.party had  no liability to the service provider for rendering service of payment of fees. As such, complaint petition is not covered under Consumer Act.   Further if there were any promise for payment or agreement as to professional fees etc. and non payment of the said amount complainant can approach any other appropriate court, but not under the provision of Consumer Protection Act.

    Learned counsel have referred case law of Hon’ble Andhra High Court K. Vishnu –vs- National Consumer Disputes… on 21 July , 2000 and reflected para 10 of the said judgment  which read as under “ There is direct authority of the Madras High Court  in  Srimathi v. Union of India, to support our view. It was observed by Srinivasan, J., speaking for the Division Bench that the language in clause (ii) of Section 2(I)(d) is very wide as it uses the expression “avails of any service for consideration.” That  will not certainly exclude the services rendered  by an Advocate. The first part of the definition makes it clear that service of any description will fall within the scope of the Section. That will undoubtedly include the service of a lawyer  to his client . Heavy reliance was placed on the decision in IMA case. The proposition of law is admitted but it is no help towards the complainant to designate him as a consumer in respect of his client under Consumer Protection Act.

       In view of the discussion made here in above, we are of the opinion that the complaint petition is without merit.

       In the result the complaint petition is dismissed.