Advocates Can't Be Sued For 'Deficiency' In Service Under Consumer Protection Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has reiterated that complaints alleging deficiency in legal services rendered by advocates are not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 observing that the services of an advocate are rendered under a contract of personal service, which stands excluded from the definition of "service" under the Act. [2026 LiveLaw (AP) 117]A Division Bench of...
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has reiterated that complaints alleging deficiency in legal services rendered by advocates are not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 observing that the services of an advocate are rendered under a contract of personal service, which stands excluded from the definition of "service" under the Act. [2026 LiveLaw (AP) 117]
A Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Subhendu Samanta dismissed a writ petition challenging the concurrent orders of the District, State and National Consumer Commissions dismissing a consumer complaint against an advocate.
The Court held that legal services rendered by advocates constitute a contract of personal service excluded from the definition of "service" under Section 2(42) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, and therefore complaints alleging deficiency in such services are not maintainable.
The Bench noted:
"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 case arose from a consumer complaint filed by the petitioner before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission alleging deficiency in legal services rendered by an advocate engaged to represent him in a civil suit.
The District Commission dismissed the complaint on merits, which was affirmed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) in appeal and by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) in revision.
Before the High Court, the petitioner challenged the concurrent orders of the consumer fora.
The Court, however, noted that the petitioner could not demonstrate the maintainability of a consumer complaint against an advocate for alleged deficiency in legal services and that his complaint before the State Bar Council had already been dismissed.
The Court further observed that the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission's earlier view permitting such complaints stood superseded by the law laid down by the Supreme Court. It accordingly held the consumer complaint to be not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act and declined to interfere with the concurrent orders of the consumer fora.
The High Court held that the consumer complaint was not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act and, finding no illegality or infirmity in the orders of the consumer fora, refused to interfere.
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.
Case Title: A.S.S.K. Durga Prasad v. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission & Others
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 29425 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 117
Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Phani Babu Yalamanchili
Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Bonu Rama Sankar Rao