- The Supreme Court held that losing a case after an argument cannot be termed as a deficiency in service on the part of an advocate.
- The Coram consisted of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna which gave this judgement in the case of Nandlal Lohariya V. Jagdish Chand Purohit.
- The Court dismissed a Special Leave Petition filed against the order which was passed by National Dispute Redressal Commission.
- In this case, the petitioner Nandlal Lohariya had filed three complaints before the District Forum against BSNL. All three complaints were dismissed by the Forum based on merits. After dismissal, the petitioners then filed a petition against the advocates alleging deficiency in service on their part.
- The three advocates were accused of not performing their duties and they also delayed in filing the complaints from 365 to 630 days and claimed compensation of Rs. 15 lakhs.
- This appeal was heard before the District Forum which was dismissed. The petitioners moved to the State Commission where the appeal was again dismissed. A revision petition was filed along with the appeal in the National Commission and both the appeal and the revision appeal were dismissed in this forum also.
- The Court stated that in every case, either of the party shall lose and the party that losses cannot claim compensation from the consumer based on a deficiency in service on the part of the advocate.
- The Court also stated that such complaints can only be filed when it is found that service was deficient by the advocate.
- The Court also noted that the appeal was dismissed on merits and there was no negligence on the part of all three advocates. Hence, it cannot be said that there was a deficiency on the part of the advocates.
- The Court mentioned that the appeal and the revision petition were rightly dismissed by the District, State and National Commission as it was based on merits.
- Courts Order
- The Court made the above observations and upheld the judgement passed by the District, State, and National Commission.
- The Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition as there was no substance in the petition.
- The Court ordered from refraining from imposing any exemplary costs while dismissing the petition as the petition aroused out of an order passed by the consumer forum.
- Were such claims made by the petitioner fair or not?
- Do you think the three forums were correct for dismissing the orders?
Share your views in the comments section below.