New Delhi: losing the case After arguing the matter a. cannot be said as lack of service on behalf of a lawyer, Supreme court Said.
The top court said that in every case where a plaintiff has lost on merit and there is no negligence on the part of the advocates, it cannot be said that there was any deficiency in service by the advocate,
“Losing the case on merits cannot be termed as deficiency in service on the part of the counsel after the argument of the counsel.
“In every litigation, either party is bound to lose and in such a case the party which loses can approach the consumer forum for compensation alleging deficiency in service, which is not acceptable at all.” comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna
The Court observed that only in a case where it is found that there was any deficiency in service by the counsel, some case can happen.
The comments came on an appeal filed by a person challenging an order of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission which rejected his plea alleging deficiency on the part of three advocates whom he had engaged for a case.
The apex court, in its order dated November 8, observed that the District Forum, the State Commission and the National Commission have rightly dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner against the three lawyers appearing for him.
“There is no substance in the existing special leave petitions. We would have rejected special leave petition With exemplary cost, however, as the present proceedings arise out of the order passed by the consumer forum, we refrain from invoking any exemplary cost while dismissing the present special leave petitions,” the bench said.
The top court said that in every case where a plaintiff has lost on merit and there is no negligence on the part of the advocates, it cannot be said that there was any deficiency in service by the advocate,
“Losing the case on merits cannot be termed as deficiency in service on the part of the counsel after the argument of the counsel.
“In every litigation, either party is bound to lose and in such a case the party which loses can approach the consumer forum for compensation alleging deficiency in service, which is not acceptable at all.” comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna
The Court observed that only in a case where it is found that there was any deficiency in service by the counsel, some case can happen.
The comments came on an appeal filed by a person challenging an order of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission which rejected his plea alleging deficiency on the part of three advocates whom he had engaged for a case.
The apex court, in its order dated November 8, observed that the District Forum, the State Commission and the National Commission have rightly dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner against the three lawyers appearing for him.
“There is no substance in the existing special leave petitions. We would have rejected special leave petition With exemplary cost, however, as the present proceedings arise out of the order passed by the consumer forum, we refrain from invoking any exemplary cost while dismissing the present special leave petitions,” the bench said.
,