Orissa

Jharsuguda

CC/82/2023

Miss Sonika Patel D/O-Omkar Patel - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mr Sangramjit Panda, Advocate Cuttack High Court, - Opp.Party(s)

Self

22 Nov 2023

ORDER

CC-82/2023

Smt. Jigeesha Mishra, President:-

22.11.2023                Today the case is posted for hearing on admission. The complainant is present. Heard.  The complainant had filed a case against opposite party who is an advocate for deficiency in service.  In Rangaswamy Vrs. Jaya Vittal  1991CPJ 685(NC) “it was held that according to section 2(1)(o) of the consumer protection Act,1986 the service under a contract of personal service is excluded from the definition of the ward service and since the advocate–Clint relationship falls under this category, it is automatically excluded from the definition of service”.  In Indian Medical Association Vrs. Shantha ( 1995), the Supreme Court enunciated and held that there is no doubt that parliamentary drafts man was aware of this well accepted distinction between “contract of service” and “contract for services” and has deliberately chosen the expression “contract of service” instead of “ contract for service” in section 2(1)(o).  The reason for this that an employer cannot be considered a customer in respect of service given by his employee under a contract of employment.  As a result of this decision, advocates cannot be included in this Act.  

                                    Accordingly the service of advocate does not come under the purview of C.P. Act. The complainant is dismissed against the O.P.  The complainant is at liberty to file before appropriate court of law.

 

                      -Sd-                                                                              -Sd-

                                     Member                                                                                President