This is a petition filed by one Jamilur Rahman Laskar, a practicing lawyer against his client opp.party Nazima Begum claiming relief under Consumer Protection Act, 1986. He, who claimed to have rendered professional service to the opp.party for protecting her Assam type house from demolition by the G.M.C. authority.
It is mentioned in the complaint petition filed under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is that the opp.party have paid professional fees partly and partly promised to be paid which is amounting to Rs.6,50,000/- as remained unpaid.
It is submitted further in the petition that he frequently requested the opp.party to pay his remaining professional fees, but opp.party denied to pay for last one year.
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 when the opp.party was served with a notice from the Guwahati Municipality Corporation seeking NOC and plan for her Assam type house. The opp.party further received a demolition notice for her unlawful construction within a week .
The aforesaid notices were challenged before the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court and it has been further mentioned that he engaged a senior lawyer and later the whole petition was pending eight years , where the complainant moved petition before various judges of Gauhati High Court.
The complainant further submitted in the petition that he engaged another two lawyer to make the argument before the court while he could not present in the court for personal reason. Ultimately, on 26th April ,2019 a writ petition was disposed of by directing the petitioner to file a fresh reply against the demolition notice where another lawyer on behalf of the complainant argued the matter before the court. The complainant claimed to have rendered his service to the opp.party and approached the opp.party for his outstanding fees etc. which have been pending for nine years and is refused to pay by the opp.party.
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.
