Grounds For referring the 'Advocates professional not  as service providers' matter to larger Bench

1.      Dharangadhra Chemical Works Ltd. vs. State of Saurashtra and Others., AIR 1957 SC 264.

There is unresolved issue in the judgment which has been pin -pointed by the judges themselves, the question of distinction on the basis of job assignment; Vakalatnama for representation or expert advice for hiring services

 “In my opinion it is impossible to lay down any rule of law distinguishing the one from the other. It is a question of fact to be decided by all the circumstances of the case. The greater the amount of direct control exercised over the person rendering the services by the person contracting for them the stronger the grounds for holding it to be a contract of service, and similarly the greater the degree of independence of such control the greater the probability that the services rendered are of the nature of professional services and that the contract is not one of service.”

There is no clear version as to what way this degree can be measure. Does this mean that providing expert opinion and other legal drafting’s etc, advocate is service provider and representing in the court on the strength of VAKALATNAMA is not a service provider?

2.      Mathew Jackob v State of Punjab 2005 CTJ 1085 SC

National commission while concluding his judgement had also referred to the case of Mathew Jackob v State of Punjab 2005 CTJ 1085 SC, wherein Apex court had held that in law of negligence, professionals, such as lawyers, doctors, architects and others are included in the category of persons professing some special skill and professional may be held liable for negligence.

“Every professional including advocates, charted accountants, doctors etc who provides services by receiving payment is a service provider under consumer protection act “

3.      V.Shanta v Indian Medical Association SC 1995 

While explaining the relationship between the doctor and patient, SC held that relationship between the doctor and patient is a contract for service and not contract of service

4        Srimathi V Union of India AIR 1996 Mad 427

Incidentally this argument was earlier also discussed in the matter of Srimathi V Union of India AIR 1996 Mad 427-That the Fact That Advocates Are Governed by The Statutory enactment and rules framed thereunder are subject to the disciplinary control of the statutory body but it was held that there is no provision to enable the bar council to deal with the dispute between the advocate and the client to compensate him for the damages and refund the money.

·         K Vishnu v National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NC)2000 

This National commission earlier also in the matter of K Vishnu v National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission had observed in 2000 that even if the advocate is regarded as officer of the court and is a part of the justice system, he cannot be set free from his basic role of services to his client for the consideration received.

·         A special word ‘not limited to’ used in the definition of service alongwith number of services quoted

 

---------------------------------------------------------

Previous

Next