The Andhra Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed that a complaint alleging deficiency in service by an advocate cannot be maintained under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, citing the Supreme Court’s authoritative ruling on the issue.
Background
Petitioner A.S.S.K. Durga Prasad filed a consumer complaint (No. 181 of 2014) before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Visakhapatnam, against an advocate (Respondent No. 4) alleging deficiency in service related to a suit filed on his behalf. The District Forum dismissed the complaint on merits (04.03.2022). The State Commission dismissed the appeal (16.11.2022), and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed the revision (20.09.2023).
The petitioner approached the High Court via Writ Petition No. 29425 of 2025 challenging these orders.
High Court’s Ruling (Division Bench: Justices Ravi Nath Tilhari & Subhendu Samanta)
The Bench held:
- The relationship between an advocate and client is a contract of personal service, excluded from the definition of “service” under Section 2(42) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
- Legal profession is sui generis (unique in nature) and cannot be equated with other professions or commercial services.
- Consumer fora lack jurisdiction over complaints alleging deficiency in legal services rendered by advocates.
Reliance on Supreme Court Precedent: The Court extensively quoted from Bar of Indian Lawyers v. D.K. Gandhi PS National Institute of Communicable Diseases (2024) 8 SCC 430, where the Apex Court overruled the NCDRC’s view and held such complaints non-maintainable. Key observations include the fiduciary nature of the advocate-client relationship, client autonomy, and the legislative intent to exclude professional services from the Act.
The High Court noted that the petitioner could not satisfy the court on maintainability. The complaint before the State Bar Council was also dismissed. Consequently, all three consumer forum orders were upheld, and the writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Key Takeaways
- Exclusion of Legal Services: Advocates’ professional services fall outside the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, whether under the 1986 or 2019 regime.
- Remedies Elsewhere: Aggrieved clients may pursue remedies through the Bar Council, civil suits for negligence, or other appropriate forums — but not consumer fora.
- Consistency with SC Ruling: High Courts are bound to follow the Supreme Court’s declaration that legal professionals are not amenable to consumer jurisdiction for service deficiency claims.
- Policy Rationale: Protects the unique nature of the legal profession, which involves fiduciary duties, client instructions, and court proceedings, distinct from commercial transactions.
Case Details
Case Name: A.S.S.K. Durga Prasad v. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission & 3 Others
Citation: Writ Petition No. 29425 of 2025
Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati
Coram: Hon’ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Hon’ble Sri Justice Subhendu Samanta
Date of Judgment: 24 June 2026
Click HERE for full Judgment.
Lawcutor 