Petitioner filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service against respondent
Petitioner submitted that he was an advocate who had argued the case of the respondent with great enthusiasm
Respondent had executed his power attorney/ Vakalatanama in the favour of petitioner
Petitioner claimed that he is entitled to the fee paid by the respondent, as the respondent had wasted his valuable time in connection with the case and sought expert advice from the petitioner
The petition was held maintainable under the jurisdiction of the consumer forum.
Issue
Whether the petitioner is entitled to retain the fees paid by the respondent or not.
Arguments
The Petitioner argued that he is entitled to the fee paid by the respondent, as the respondent had wasted his valuable time in connection with the case and sought expert advice from the petitioner
The Respondent argued that the petitioner is not entitled to the fees as he has not rendered his services.
Decision
The National Commission hold that the opposite party (petitioner) was not entitled to retain the fee when he did not perform the duty for which the fee was meant and that a complaint made by the complainant to the Bar Council related only to misconduct on the part of its member (i.e., petitioner) whereas the Consumer Fora were required to determine whether proper service had been rendered or not. The Commission relied upon the case of D.K. Gandhi v M. Mathias [III (2007) CPJ 337 (NC)] in holding that deficiency in service by lawyers was covered under the Consumer Protection Act.
