WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

2. Statement of Facts and Jurisdiction

Mr. G engaged an advocate for multiple legal matters, paying substantial fees for professional
representation. First, he paid ₹1,00,000 to the advocate to defend a property dispute. On the
date of hearing, the advocate failed to appear without any prior intimation, which resulted in an
ex parte decree and ultimately led to Mr. G losing ownership of the property.

In another matter, Mr. G entrusted the same advocate with the responsibility of filing a writ
petition before the High Court. Although the petition was duly filed, the advocate thereafter
stopped responding to Mr. G’s calls and emails. As a result of this inaction, the writ petition was
dismissed for non-prosecution, depriving Mr. G of a critical remedy.

Additionally, Mr. G engaged the advocate to draft a partnership deed for his business. Due to
the advocate’s errors and omissions in drafting, the Registrar declared the deed void. This
mistake caused Mr. G to suffer a business loss amounting to ₹50 lakhs.

Feeling aggrieved by these repeated lapses and acts of negligence, Mr. G approached the
Consumer Forum, claiming that the conduct of the advocate amounted to a deficiency of service
under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The maintainability of this complaint has now been
challenged before the Supreme Court, where the larger issue of whether advocates can be held
liable under consumer law is under consideration.

This Court has jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution to hear this appeal on the
maintainability of the consumer complaint. The facts are confined to those provided in the
proposition, with no new facts introduced. The applicable law is limited to the Consumer
Protection Act, 2019, the Advocates Act, 1961, and binding judicial precedents.

3. Issues

The issues raised for consideration are:

1.​ Whether services rendered by advocates constitute “service” under Section 2(42) of the
Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
2.​ Whether non-appearance, ignoring clients, and negligent drafting of documents by an
advocate amount to “deficiency in service” under consumer law.
3.​ Whether the exclusion of advocates’ services as a “contract of personal service” is
justified in law and policy.
4.​ What remedies are available to clients aggrieved by advocate negligence if consumer
fora lack jurisdiction.

4. Arguments Advanced
The respondent submits that the present complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer
Protection Act, 2019. Services rendered by advocates constitute a “contract of personal service”
expressly excluded from the definition of “service” under Section 2(42) of the Act. This exclusion
upholds the sui generis nature of the legal profession and prevents the overburdening of
consumer fora with complex professional disputes. Clients retain adequate alternate remedies
through civil proceedings and disciplinary mechanisms under the Advocates Act, 1961. The
submissions on each issue are addressed below.

Issue 1: Whether services rendered by advocates constitute “service” under Section 2(42) of the
Consumer Protection Act, 2019

Services rendered by advocates do not constitute “service” under Section 2(42) of the
Consumer Protection Act, 2019. This provision defines “service” as any service made available
to potential users but expressly excludes “service under a contract of personal service.” The
advocate-client relationship qualifies as a contract of personal service due to the fiduciary
obligations, direct client control through instructions, and the advocate’s role as an agent under
a vakalatnama.

First, the Supreme Court in Bar of Indian Lawyers v. D.K. Gandhi (2024 INSC 410) has held that
the Legislature did not intend to bring professional services like advocacy within the ambit of the
Act. The Court observed that the Act targets unfair trade practices by traders and businessmen,
not intellectual professions involving specialized judgment. The relationship involves a high
degree of fiduciary trust, with the client exercising control over the advocate’s actions, rendering
it a personal service excluded under Section 2(42).^1

Second, this position is distinguished from medical services, which the Supreme Court in Indian
Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha (1995) 6 SCC 651 held to be a “contract for service”
includible under the Act. Legal services differ as they entail adversarial unpredictability,
adherence to court protocols, and client-directed objectives, aligning more closely with personal
service as defined in Dharangadhra Chemical Works Ltd. v. State of Saurashtra (AIR 1957 SC
264). There, the Court clarified that personal service implies employer-like oversight, present
here through the client’s power to instruct or terminate the engagement.

Third, inclusion of advocacy under the Act would frustrate its objective of providing expeditious
remedies for commercial disputes. As affirmed in V.B. Joshi v. Union of India (1996) 11 SCC
318, the Act is designed for consumer exploitation in trade, not nuanced professional
engagements. Therefore, advocates’ services fall outside Section 2(42).

Issue 2: Whether non-appearance, ignoring clients, and negligent drafting of documents by an

advocate amount to “deficiency in service” under consumer law

Non-appearance, unresponsiveness to clients, and negligent drafting by an advocate do not

amount to “deficiency in service” under consumer law. As established under Issue 1, advocates’
services are excluded from the Act’s definition of “service,” precluding any finding of deficiency
under Section 2(11), which addresses faults in trade or commercial services.
First, the Supreme Court in Bar of Indian Lawyers v. D.K. Gandhi (supra) ruled that alleged
negligence in legal services constitutes professional misconduct governed by the Advocates
Act, 1961, as a special statute, and not under the general Consumer Protection Act. The facts
here—failure to appear leading to an ex parte decree, inaction resulting in dismissal for
non-prosecution, and drafting errors voiding a deed—arise from professional judgment in
litigious contexts, not objective commercial shortfalls.^2

Second, such lapses lack the uniformity required for “deficiency” under the Act. Unlike tangible
goods or routine services, legal work involves case-specific strategies and external factors like
court scheduling. The Punjab and Haryana High Court in Ludhiana Improvement Trust v.
Balinder Singh (2017) held that non-appearance does not qualify as a consumer deficiency,
directing recourse to civil courts. Similarly, unresponsiveness and drafting errors reflect ethical
breaches rather than service faults amenable to summary consumer proceedings.

Third, permitting these claims under the Act would lead to multiplicity of proceedings and
undermine the Advocates Act’s disciplinary framework. The Supreme Court in Supreme Court
Bar Association v. Union of India (1998) 2 SCC 176 emphasized the legal profession’s unique
status, precluding its equation with consumer disputes. Hence, no deficiency arises under
consumer law.

Issue 3: Whether the exclusion of advocates’ services as a “contract of personal service” is

justified in law and policy

The exclusion of advocates’ services as a “contract of personal service” is justified both in law
and policy. Section 2(42) of the Act mandates this carve-out, reinforced by judicial interpretation
preserving the profession’s integrity.

First, on the legal front, the Advocates Act, 1961, operates as a complete code for regulating
legal practice, including misconduct under Sections 35-37. The Supreme Court in Supreme
Court Bar Association v. Union of India (supra) described the legal profession as sui generis,
distinct from commercial trades. In Bar of Indian Lawyers v. D.K. Gandhi (supra), the Court
applied the doctrine of harmonious construction, holding that the special Advocates Act prevails
over the general Consumer Protection Act to avoid conflict.^3 The exclusion ensures no dilution
of Bar Council authority.

Second, policy considerations further validate this stance. The Statement of Objects and
Reasons of the Consumer Protection Act underscores remedies against exploitative business
practices, not self-regulated professions essential to justice administration. Inclusion would flood
fora with intricate disputes, delaying consumer relief and eroding advocates’ independence, as
warned in Bar of Indian Lawyers (supra). The Bombay High Court in Poonam Verma v. Ashwin
Patel (1996) endorsed exclusion to maintain professional autonomy.

Third, persuasive foreign precedents, such as the UK’s Midland Bank Trust Co. Ltd. v. Hett,
Stubbs & Kemp, treat legal services as fiduciary rather than contractual for consumer purposes.
Thus, the exclusion aligns with legislative intent and safeguards systemic balance.
Issue 4: What remedies are available to clients aggrieved by advocate negligence if consumer fora
lack jurisdiction

In the absence of jurisdiction in consumer fora, clients aggrieved by advocate negligence have
effective alternate remedies under civil and disciplinary laws, ensuring comprehensive redress
without procedural overlap.

First, civil suits for damages provide monetary relief under tort or contract principles. A client
may institute proceedings in a competent civil court under Order VII of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, claiming compensation for losses, including the ₹1,00,000 fees, ₹50 lakhs
business detriment, and mental agony. The Supreme Court in Bar of Indian Lawyers v. D.K.
Gandhi (supra) affirmed this as the appropriate forum for pecuniary claims, allowing proof of
causation, such as the direct link between non-appearance and the ex parte decree.^4 Awards
may include interest and costs, as in R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. (1995) 6
SCC 139.

Second, disciplinary proceedings under Sections 35-37 of the Advocates Act, 1961, enable
complaints to the State Bar Council for professional misconduct, including negligence. Penalties
range from reprimand to disbarment, with appeals to the Bar Council of India under Section 37
or the High Court. This mechanism addresses ethical lapses like unresponsiveness and drafting
errors expeditiously and at no cost.

Third, in cases of gross misconduct, criminal remedies under Sections 420 or 304A of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860, may apply for cheating or culpable negligence. The Bombay High Court in
Poonam Verma v. Ashwin Patel (supra) upheld this bifurcated approach—civil for damages and
disciplinary for sanctions—preventing forum-shopping while upholding accountability.

These remedies fully protect clients like Mr. G, channeling disputes to specialized avenues
suited to their nature. The exclusion from consumer fora thus does not deny justice but ensures
its efficient delivery.

In conclusion, the complaint is not maintainable. The respondent prays for its dismissal,
upholding the exclusion of advocates’ services under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.