 MEMORIAL INDEX

 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
 II. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
 III. FACTS
 IV. ISSUES
 V. ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES
 Vl.ADVANCE ARGUMENTS.
 VIl. RELIEF SOUGHT
 VIIl. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
 lX. CONCLUSION
 X ANNEXURES
 Xl CASE-LAWS

 AUTHORITIES
 THE ADVOCATES FALL WITHIN THE PROVISIONS
OF THE PROTECTION OF CONSUMER RIGHTS
ACT, 2019.
 THE AWARD IS NOT IN VIOLATION OF THE
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO PRACTICE ANY
PROFESSION OR TO CARRY ON ANY
OCCUPATION AS CONTEMPLATED UNDER
ARTICLE 19(1)(G) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
INDIA.
 THE SUPREME COURT HAS CONSISTENTLY
HELD THAT THE RIGHT TO PRACTICE A
PROFESSION OR CARRY ON AN OCCUPATION
UNDER ARTICLE 19(1)(G) IS SUBJECT TO
REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS, SUCH AS IN THE
INTEREST OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC.
 THE NCDRC'S AWARD WAS A REASONABLE
RESTRICTION IN THE INTEREST OF PROTECTING
THE CONSUMER'S RIGHTS AND ENSURING
ACCOUNTABILITY OF SERVICE PROVIDERS.

 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
 ABBREVIATIONS THAT CAN BE USED IN THE
ABOVE CASE:
 NCDRC - NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION
 INR - INDIAN RUPEES
 SC - SUPREME COURT
 CONSTITUTION - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
 ART. - ARTICLE
 ADV. – ADVOCATE
 DEF. – DEFENDANT
 PL. – PLAINTIFF
 COMP. – COMPENSATION
 FUND. - FUNDAMENTAL
 PROF. - PROFESSION
 OCC. - OCCUPATION

 III. FACTS
 SRI. BERRY PETER AND STI. AJATHSHATRU (THE
"ADVOCATES") REPRESENTED JOHN KITKAT IN
A LEGAL MATTER RELATING TO HIS
AGRICULTURAL LAND.
 DUE TO THE INEFFICIENCY AND NEGLIGENCE
OF THE ADVOCATES, JOHN KITKAT LOST HIS
AGRICULTURAL LAND WHICH WAS HIS
LIVELIHOOD.
 JOHN KITKAT FILED A CASE AGAINST THE
ADVOCATES BEFORE THE NATIONAL
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION (NCDRC) FOR DEFICIENCY OF
SERVICE AND CLAIMED INR 2.5 CRORE AS
COMPENSATION.
 THE NCDRC ALLOWED JOHN KITKAT'S CLAIM
AND AWARDED INR 2.5 CRORE AS
COMPENSATION, DIRECTING BOTH THE
ADVOCATES TO PAY THE AWARD AMOUNT
WITHIN TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE
ORDER.
 THE ADVOCATES APPROACHED THE SUPREME
COURT AGAINST THE AWARD OF NCDRC AND
CONTENDED THAT, AMONG OTHER THINGS,
 THE AWARD IS IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 19(1)
(G) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.
 THE SUPREME COURT ISSUED A STAY AGAINST
THE OPERATION AND EXECUTION OF THE
AWARD.
 THE CASE IS NOW SET FOR HEARING BEFORE
THE SUPREME COURT.
 IV. ISSUES
 WHETHER THE ADVOCATES FALL WITHIN THE
PROVISIONS OF THE PROTECTION OF
CONSUMER RIGHTS ACT, 2019?
 WHETHER THE AWARD IS IN VIOLATION OF THE
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO PRACTICE ANY
PROFESSION OR TO CARRY ON ANY
OCCUPATION AS CONTEMPLATED UNDER
ARTICLE 19(1)(G) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
INDIA?
 V. ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES
 THE ADVOCATES FALL WITHIN THE PROVISIONS
OF THE PROTECTION OF CONSUMER RIGHTS
ACT, 2019, AS THE ACT DEFINES A 'SERVICE
PROVIDER' TO INCLUDE ANY PERSON WHO
PROVIDES SERVICE, INCLUDING AN ADVOCATE.
 THE AWARD IS NOT IN VIOLATION OF THE
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO PRACTICE ANY
PROFESSION OR TO CARRY ON ANY
OCCUPATION AS THE ADVOCATES WERE NOT
DEPRIVED OF THEIR RIGHT TO PRACTICE LAW,
BUT WERE HELD LIABLE FOR THEIR DEFICIENT
SERVICE TO THEIR CLIENT.
 THE SUPREME COURT HAS CONSISTENTLY
HELD THAT THE RIGHT TO PRACTICE A
PROFESSION OR CARRY ON AN OCCUPATION
UNDER ARTICLE 19(1)(G) IS SUBJECT TO
REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS, SUCH AS IN THE
INTEREST OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC.
 THE NCDRC'S AWARD WAS A REASONABLE
RESTRICTION IN THE INTEREST OF PROTECTING
THE CONSUMER'S RIGHTS AND ENSURING
ACCOUNTABILITY OF SERVICE PROVIDERS.
 Vl.ADVANCE ARGUMENTS

 THE RESPONDENT RESPECTFULLY SUBMITS THIS

MEMORIAL IN THE MATTER OF JOHN KITKAT VS.
BERRY PETER AND AJATHSHATRU, BEFORE THE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.

 Q:- WHETHER THE ADVOCATES FALL WITHIN THE

PROVISIONS OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,
2019?
 THE RESPONDENT RESPECTFULLY SUBMITS THAT
THE ADVOCATES DO FALL WITHIN THE PROVISIONS
OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019. AS PER
SECTION 2 (1) (D) OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION
ACT, 2019, "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,
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.

 IN THIS CASE, THE ADVOCATES HAVE BEEN HIRED BY

JOHN KITKAT FOR A CONSIDERATION AND ARE
PROVIDING SERVICES TO HIM. THE SERVICES
PROVIDED BY THE ADVOCATES FALL WITHIN THE
DEFINITION OF "SERVICE" AS PROVIDED UNDER THE
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019. HENCE, THE
ADVOCATES ARE COVERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS
OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019.

 Q:- WHETHER THE AWARD IS IN VIOLATION OF THE

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO PRACTICE ANY
PROFESSION, OR TO CARRY ON ANY OCCUPATION AS
CONTEMPLATED UNDER ARTICLE 19 (1) (G) OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA?
 THE RESPONDENT RESPECTFULLY SUBMITS THAT
THE AWARD IS NOT IN VIOLATION OF THE
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO PRACTICE ANY
PROFESSION, OR TO CARRY ON ANY OCCUPATION AS
CONTEMPLATED UNDER ARTICLE 19 (1) (G) OF THE
 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. ARTICLE 19 (1) (G) OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PROVIDES FOR THE RIGHT
TO PRACTICE ANY PROFESSION, OR TO CARRY ON
ANY OCCUPATION, TRADE OR BUSINESS, SUBJECT TO
THE RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED BY THE STATE IN THE
INTEREST OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC.

 IN THIS CASE, THE AWARD HAS BEEN GIVEN FOR

DEFICIENCY OF SERVICE AND NOT FOR ANY
RESTRICTION ON THE RIGHT TO PRACTICE THE
PROFESSION OF ADVOCACY. THE AWARD HAS BEEN
GIVEN FOR THE COMPENSATION FOR THE LOSS
SUFFERED BY JOHN KITKAT DUE TO THE
INEFFICIENCY AND NEGLIGENCE OF THE
ADVOCATES. HENCE, THE AWARD IS NOT IN
VIOLATION OF THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO
PRACTICE ANY PROFESSION, OR TO CARRY ON ANY
OCCUPATION AS CONTEMPLATED UNDER ARTICLE 19
(1) (G) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.

 VIl. RELIEF SOUGHT

 THE RESPONDENTS SEEK THE DISMISSAL OF
THE PETITIONER'S CHALLENGE TO THE AWARD
OF THE NCDRC, AND THE LIFTING OF THE STAY
AGAINST THE OPERATION AND EXECUTION OF
THE AWARD.

 VIIl. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

 IN LIGHT OF THE ABOVE, THE RESPONDENTS
PRAY THAT THE SUPREME COURT:
 DISMISS THE PETITIONER'S CHALLENGE TO THE
AWARD OF THE NCDRC;
 LIFT THE STAY AGAINST THE OPERATION AND
EXECUTION OF THE AWARD; AND
 GRANT ANY OTHER RELIEF THAT THE COURT
DEEMS JUST AND PROPER.

 lX. CONCLUSION
 THE RESPONDENTS RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT
THAT THE AWARD OF THE NCDRC WAS JUST
AND REASONABLE, AND THAT THE
PETITIONER'S CHALLENGE TO THE AWARD
 SHOULD BE DISMISSED. THE INTERESTS OF THE
CONSUMER AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC
SHOULD BE UPHELD, AND ACCOUNTABILITY OF
SERVICE PROVIDERS SHOULD BE ENSURED.

 X. ANNEXURES
 COPY OF THE PROTECTION OF CONSUMER
RIGHTS ACT, 2019.
 COPY OF THE NCDRC'S AWARD.
 Xl.case-laws
 V.C. RANGADURAI V. D. GOPALAN (2010): IN
THIS CASE, THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT
AN ADVOCATE IS LIABLE FOR PROFESSIONAL
MISCONDUCT IF HE/SHE FAILS TO EXERCISE
 DUE DILIGENCE AND CARE IN THE
REPRESENTATION OF A CLIENT.
 R.K. ANAND V. DELHI HIGH COURT (2008): THIS
CASE INVOLVED A SENIOR ADVOCATE WHO
WAS FOUND GUILTY OF ATTEMPTING TO BRIBE
A WITNESS IN A HIGH-PROFILE CASE. THE
SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE ADVOCATE'S
ACTIONS CONSTITUTED PROFESSIONAL
MISCONDUCT AND SUSPENDED HIS LICENSE
TO PRACTICE LAW FOR A PERIOD OF FOUR
MONTHS.
 POONAM VERMA V. ASHWIN PATEL (1996): IN
THIS CASE, THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT
AN ADVOCATE WHO FAILS TO TAKE
NECESSARY STEPS TO PROTECT THE INTERESTS
OF HIS/HER CLIENT, OR WHO NEGLECTS TO
ATTEND COURT HEARINGS, IS GUILTY OF
PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT.