<p>The Supreme Court has said that losing the case on merits after the advocate argued the matter cannot be said to be a deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act.</p>.<p>"Only in a case where it is found that there was any deficiency in service by the advocate, there may be some case. In each and every case where a litigant has lost on merits and there is no negligence on the part of the advocate, it cannot be said that there was any deficiency in service by the advocate," a bench of Justices M R Shah and B V Nagarathna said.</p>.<p>The top court dismissed an appeal filed by Nandlal Lohariya against rejection of his complaint filed against his three advocates by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the Rajasthan State and Pratapgarh district consumer fora.</p>.<p>The petitioner led by Viraat Tripathi claimed the three advocates have not performed their duties properly, leading to the dismissal of his case.</p>.<p>"If the submission is accepted, in that case, in each and every case where a litigant has lost on merits and his case is dismissed, he will approach the consumer fora and pray for compensation alleging deficiency in service. Losing the case on merits after the advocate argued the matter cannot be said to be a deficiency in service on the part of the advocate," the bench said.</p>.<p>The court dismissed the matter also on grounds of a delay of 593 days in filing the special leave petition before it.</p>.<p>The bench said it would have dismissed the petition with exemplary costs, however, as the proceedings arose out of the order passed by the consumer forum, it refrained from doing so.</p>.<p><strong>Watch the latest DH Videos here:</strong></p>
<p>The Supreme Court has said that losing the case on merits after the advocate argued the matter cannot be said to be a deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act.</p>.<p>"Only in a case where it is found that there was any deficiency in service by the advocate, there may be some case. In each and every case where a litigant has lost on merits and there is no negligence on the part of the advocate, it cannot be said that there was any deficiency in service by the advocate," a bench of Justices M R Shah and B V Nagarathna said.</p>.<p>The top court dismissed an appeal filed by Nandlal Lohariya against rejection of his complaint filed against his three advocates by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the Rajasthan State and Pratapgarh district consumer fora.</p>.<p>The petitioner led by Viraat Tripathi claimed the three advocates have not performed their duties properly, leading to the dismissal of his case.</p>.<p>"If the submission is accepted, in that case, in each and every case where a litigant has lost on merits and his case is dismissed, he will approach the consumer fora and pray for compensation alleging deficiency in service. Losing the case on merits after the advocate argued the matter cannot be said to be a deficiency in service on the part of the advocate," the bench said.</p>.<p>The court dismissed the matter also on grounds of a delay of 593 days in filing the special leave petition before it.</p>.<p>The bench said it would have dismissed the petition with exemplary costs, however, as the proceedings arose out of the order passed by the consumer forum, it refrained from doing so.</p>.<p><strong>Watch the latest DH Videos here:</strong></p>
