Andhra Pradesh High Court Calls For Revision Of AP Advocates' Fee Rules, Says It Doesn't Reflect Prevailing Rates
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has observed that the advocate fee structure prescribed under the A.P. Advocates' Fee Rules, 2010 requires revision, noting that some of the prescribed fees have become outdated and have no correlation with prevailing rates.For context, the 2010 Rules govern the fees payable as costs by any party in respect of the fees of his adversary's Advocate, upon...
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has observed that the advocate fee structure prescribed under the A.P. Advocates' Fee Rules, 2010 requires revision, noting that some of the prescribed fees have become outdated and have no correlation with prevailing rates.
For context, the 2010 Rules govern the fees payable as costs by any party in respect of the fees of his adversary's Advocate, upon all proceedings in the High Court or any Court subordinate thereto.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Alapati Giridhar made the observation while dismissing an appeal filed by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) against a motor accident compensation award.
In doing so, the Court also enhanced the compensation payable to the deceased's family from Rs. 7.10 lakh to Rs. 11.94 lakh and imposed costs of Rs. 25,000 on APSRTC, payable to the claimants.
Rule 15 read with Rule 40 of the A.P. Advocates' Fee Rules, 2010 restricts the advocate fee in motor accident claims and connected proceedings to Rs. 25,000. Against this backdrop, the Court examined whether the prescribed fee continues to reflect the actual costs incurred by parties in litigation.
Extending the discussion to the broader question of realistic costs, the Court observed that the principle would apply beyond motor accident claims. The Court observed:
“It is needless to mention that the view of this Court in the preceding para is also applicable in Civil Suits, CMAs, Revisions, Appeal Suits, Second Appeals, Execution Petitions, Writs and Writ Appeals etc., for awarding realistic costs for the successful party. Also a provision for Advocate Fee be made to award Advocate Fee ranging from 1 to 3 times depending on the facts of the case including for frivolous or vexatious pleas, for protracting the case, for the time and effort put by a party and his/her counsel, for obtaining Interim Injunction, Attachment, status-quo, stay etc., in Original Proceeding, Revision or Appeal etc, then a mischievous party will not venture for seeking such orders or seek extension of such orders without there being sufficient grounds in his/her case, deterring the higher the abuse by him, the higher the costs need to pay upto 3 times of the Advocate Fee by him on loosing the case.
This Court is of the humble view, that the law and discussion as stated supra, the fee prescribing minimum, maximum etc., in the Rules, 2010, requires revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in view of the passage of around 16 years from framing of the Rules, 2010 as some of them are with outdated fee structure, with no correlation with the prevailing rates of fees as per the law stated supra.”
Turning to the facts of the case, the matter arose from the death of a 41 years old and had been in employment as a college clerk. The deceased was riding a bicycle when an APSRTC bus hit the bicycle from behind. He sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to them.
The family of the deceased subsequently approached the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs. 7.10 lakh. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, found that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the APSRTC bus driver and awarded the claimed amount.
APSRTC challenged the award before the High Court, primarily questioning the assessment of compensation. The claimants had not filed any appeal or cross objection seeking enhancement.
The High Court nevertheless examined whether the compensation awarded represented just compensation. Referring to Order XLI Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court held that it had the power to mould the relief and correct an error in the Tribunal's assessment even in the absence of an appeal or cross objection by the claimants.
The Court took note of the appeal's pendency for about 20 years. It observed that APSRTC had contributed to the prolonged litigation and that the claimants had been deprived of the benefit of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal during this period. In this context the Court also said:
“Thus generally the Insurer or Insured is benefited for allowing nominal Court Fee in MVOP/Original Proceeding, MACMA or EP at the cost of the Claimants. In fact, generally, the claimants may incur more amount towards Advocate Fee when they are pursuing the claim either before the Tribunal or before this Court.”
The Court then considered the compensation payable to the claimants. It found that the deceased was in permanent employment and accordingly added 30% towards future prospects while assessing the loss of dependency.
After applying the appropriate deduction towards personal expenses and the multiplier applicable to his age, the Court assessed the loss of dependency at Rs. 9,66,420.
The Court further awarded Rs. 48,000 each towards loss of consortium to the deceased's mother, wife, son and daughter, along with Rs. 18,000 towards loss of estate and Rs. 18,000 towards funeral expenses.
The Court ultimately enhanced the compensation to Rs. 11,94,420, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization, subject to payment of the additional court fee.
The Court accordingly directed:
- APSRTC's appeal was dismissed with costs of Rs. 25,000, payable to the claimants.
- The Corporation may recover the costs from the employee responsible for filing and continuing the appeal.
- APSRTC shall examine whether departmental action is warranted against the concerned employee or employees.
- The enhanced compensation of Rs.11,94,420 shall carry interest at 7.5% per annum, subject to payment of the additional court fee.
- The Registrar General shall place the case file before the Chief Justice for consideration of the issue concerning revision of the advocate fee structure.
Case Title: Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Vellanki Lakshmi & Ors.
Case No.: M.A.C.M.A. No. 2289 of 2012
Counsel for APSRTC: P. Venkata Rao, Standing Counsel
Counsel for Respondents: Umadevi Manchala