Andhra Pradesh: The Andhra Pradesh High Court has upheld the dismissal of a consumer complaint filed against an advocate for alleged deficiency in service, holding that legal services rendered by an advocate fall outside the purview of the Consumer Protection Act.
A division bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Subhendu Samanta was hearing a writ petition filed by A.S.S.K. Durga Prasad, challenging concurrent orders of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, all of which had rejected his complaint against an advocate.
The petitioner had filed Consumer Complaint No.181 of 2014 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission No.I, Visakhapatnam, against an advocate, arraigned as respondent No.4, alleging deficiency in service in connection with a suit filed on his behalf. The District Forum dismissed the complaint on merits on 04.03.2022. His appeal, F.A.No.7 of 2022, was dismissed by the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Vijayawada, on 16.11.2022, and his revision petition was thereafter dismissed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, by judgment dated 20.09.2023.
Before the High Court, counsel for the petitioner was unable to satisfy the bench on the maintainability of a consumer complaint against an advocate for alleged deficiency in rendering legal services, and submitted that a complaint made against the advocate before the State Bar Council had also been dismissed.
The court held that it is well settled that an advocate, in connection with services rendered on the legal side, is not covered under the Consumer Protection Act. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Bar of Indian Lawyers v. D.K. Gandhi PS National Institute of Communicable Diseases, (2024) 8 SCC 430, the bench noted that the relationship between an advocate and a client, involving fiduciary duties, requirements of express instructions before any concession is made, and the client's control over the manner in which the advocate acts, was in the nature of a contract of personal service.
"A service hired or availed of an advocate is a service under 'a contract of personal service', and therefore would fall within the exclusionary part of the definition of 'service' contained in Section 2(42) of the CP Act, 2019... A complaint alleging 'deficiency in service' against advocates practising legal profession would not be maintainable under the CP Act, 2019."
The court also referred to the separate concurring opinion of Justice Pankaj Mithal in the same decision, holding that the services of professionals, particularly lawyers, had to be excluded from consumer protection law in keeping with the legislative intent behind the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as re-enacted in 2019.
Noting that the Supreme Court had, in Bar of Indian Lawyers, overruled the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission's earlier view that complaints alleging deficiency in service by lawyers were maintainable, the High Court held that the complaint filed by the petitioner against the advocate had rightly been dismissed, and that no interference was warranted with the three orders impugned in the writ petition.
The Writ Petition was accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner: Sri Phani Babu Yalamanchili, Advocate
For Respondent No.4: Sri Bonu Rama Sankar Rao, Advocate
Case Title: A.S.S.K. Durga Prasad vs. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission & 3 others, W.P.No.29425/2025.
