advocatemmmohan
A.S.S.K. Durga Prasad v. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission & Ors.
2026:APHC:24761 (A.P.)
HEAD NOTES
A. Consumer Protection Act, 2019—Section 2(42)—Advocates—Legal profession—Deficiency in service—Maintainability of consumer complaint.
The services rendered by an advocate in the course of legal practice arise out of a contract of personal service and are excluded from the definition of "service" under Section 2(42) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Consequently, a complaint alleging deficiency in legal services against an advocate is not maintainable before the Consumer Fora.
Held: Consumer complaint filed against an advocate alleging deficiency in professional legal services was rightly dismissed by the Consumer Fora at all three levels.
(Paras 5–10)
B. Consumer Protection Act, 2019—Legal profession—Professionals—Legislative intent.
The Consumer Protection Act is intended to protect consumers against unfair trade practices and commercial deficiencies in services. The legislature never intended to bring the legal profession within the ambit of consumer jurisdiction. The legal profession is sui generis and cannot be equated with ordinary commercial or business services.
(Paras 7 & 8)
C. Advocates Act, 1961—Advocate and client—Nature of relationship.
The relationship between an advocate and a client is fiduciary and rests upon confidence, trust and personal confidence. An advocate acts under the client's instructions and owes professional duties regulated by the Advocates Act and the Bar Council Rules. Such relationship constitutes a contract of personal service and therefore falls outside the Consumer Protection Act.
(Paras 7 & 8)
D. Consumer Protection—Precedent—Binding effect of Supreme Court.
The decision of the Supreme Court in Bar of Indian Lawyers v. D.K. Gandhi PS National Institute of Communicable Diseases, (2024) 8 SCC 430, conclusively settles that complaints alleging deficiency in legal services against advocates are not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act. Consumer Fora are bound by the said declaration of law.
(Paras 7–10)
E. Writ Jurisdiction—Challenge to concurrent consumer forum decisions.
Where the District Consumer Commission, State Commission and National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission have concurrently dismissed a complaint which is itself not maintainable in law, no interference is warranted in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(Paras 9–11)
ANALYSIS OF FACTS
The petitioner instituted a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission against his advocate alleging deficiency in professional legal services rendered in connection with civil litigation. The complaint was dismissed on merits. The appeal before the State Commission and the revision petition before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission were also dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court challenging all the three orders.
ANALYSIS OF LAW
(i) Maintainability of Consumer Complaint Against an Advocate
The Division Bench held that the issue is no longer res integra. Relying upon the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Bar of Indian Lawyers v. D.K. Gandhi PS National Institute of Communicable Diseases, the Court held that advocates rendering professional legal services do not provide "service" within the meaning of Section 2(42) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
(ii) Nature of Legal Profession
The Court observed that an advocate-client relationship is fundamentally fiduciary in character. The advocate functions under the instructions of the client, owes professional obligations under the Advocates Act and the Bar Council Rules, and does not render commercial services comparable to business or trade.
Accordingly, legal services constitute a contract of personal service, expressly excluded from the statutory definition of "service".
(iii) Binding Effect of Supreme Court Decision
The Court extracted and followed paragraphs 51 to 53 and 80 to 82 of Bar of Indian Lawyers, wherein the Supreme Court held:
legal profession is sui generis;
advocates' services are excluded from consumer jurisdiction;
complaints alleging deficiency in legal services are not maintainable;
the earlier contrary view of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission stands overruled.
(iv) Exercise of Writ Jurisdiction
Since the complaint itself was legally incompetent, the concurrent dismissal by the District Commission, State Commission and National Commission called for no interference under Article 226.
RATIO DECIDENDI
Professional legal services rendered by an advocate to a client arise out of a fiduciary relationship constituting a contract of personal service and, therefore, stand excluded from the definition of "service" under Section 2(42) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Consequently, a complaint alleging deficiency in legal services against an advocate is not maintainable before the Consumer Fora, and writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to revive proceedings which are inherently not maintainable.
FINAL HOLDING
Consumer complaint against the advocate held to be not maintainable.
Orders of the District Consumer Commission, State Consumer Commission and National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission upheld.
No ground for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Writ Petition dismissed.
No order as to costs.
