The Andhra Pradesh High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging orders of consumer forums that had rejected a complaint filed against an advocate over alleged deficiency in legal services. Reiterating the Supreme Court's settled position, the Division Bench held that services rendered by advocates do not fall within the scope of the Consumer Protection Act.
Background of the Case
The petitioner had filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Visakhapatnam, alleging deficiency in legal services provided by an advocate. The District Commission dismissed the complaint on merits in March 2022.
The petitioner then approached the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in appeal, which also dismissed the case. A revision petition before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) met the same fate in September 2023. The petitioner subsequently challenged all three orders before the High Court.
Court's Observation
The Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Subhendu Samanta observed that the legal position is no longer open to debate after the Supreme Court's judgment in Bar of Indian Lawyers v. D.K. Gandhi PS National Institute of Communicable Diseases.
Take CourtBook Everywhere
Access your account on the go with our mobile app.
The Bench noted that the petitioner's counsel was unable to establish how a complaint against an advocate for alleged deficiency in legal services could be maintained under the Consumer Protection Act.
Referring extensively to the Supreme Court's ruling, the Bench observed:
"The law is well settled that an Advocate/lawyer in connection with the service rendered by him in legal side is not covered under the Consumer Protection Act."
The High Court also relied on the Supreme Court's finding that legal services are rendered under a "contract of personal service," which is specifically excluded from the definition of "service" under the Consumer Protection Act. Consequently, complaints alleging deficiency in professional legal services cannot be entertained before consumer commissions.
Decision
Applying the Supreme Court's binding precedent, the High Court held that the consumer complaint filed against the advocate was not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act.
The Bench further found no reason to interfere with the orders passed by the District Consumer Commission, the State Commission, and the National Consumer Commission.
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed. The Court passed no order as to costs and directed that all pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, would also stand closed.
Case Details
Case Title: A.S.S.K. Durga Prasad v. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission & 3 Other
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 29425 of 2025
Judge: Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Subhendu Samanta
Decision Date: 24 June 2026
-300x169.webp)
