Premier Automobiles V. Jayesh Fabrics Case Study

Client is a consumer under sec.2 (1)(d)(ii) of CPA. The term ’service’ is defined under sec 2 (1)(0). "Service" means service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes, but not limited to, the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both, housing construction, entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service.
Premier Automobiles v.Jayesh Fabrics,10 the State Commission has held liable an advocate, Viplav Sharma, for collusion, fabrication and destruction of documents. The State Commission also sent a copy of adverse findings to the Bar Council, Delhi, for taking action against the said advocate. However, on appeal, the National Commission, while setting aside the order of the State Commission, had reached the conclusion that without any such material or evidence on record and without providing any
M. Mathias,11 the National Consumer Redressal Commission made it clear that all professionals, including lawyers, should come under the ambit of the CPA. The plaintiff had engaged the professional service of a lawyer. Subsequently, a dispute arose and the plaintiff alleged negligence on the part of the lawyer and filed a consumer complaint against him at the District Consumer Forum. The District Consumer Forum directed the lawyer to pay Rs.3000 as compensation for mental agony and harassment. The State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission overruled the District Forums order by stating that a complaint against a lawyer was not maintainable before the consumer forum as the service rendered by lawyers did not come under section 2 (1)(o) of CPA. As per the National Commission, the reasoning given by the State Commission was erroneous. The National Commission stated