Failure by a lawyer to provide proper legal advice to clients may amount to professional misconduct, the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court recently held [Divisional Manager Vs Kathiresan].
A Division Bench of Justices N Anand Venkatesh and KK Ramakrishnan criticised a lawyer for not asking a client in vegetative state to seek enhanced compensation.
"Such inaction, in appropriate cases, may amount to professional misconduct, warranting consideration by the appropriate disciplinary authority," the Court stated in its order of June 1.
An advocate assumes the role of a trustee of the client’s interests once he enters appearance for a party, the Bench underlined.
"Once an advocate enters appearance on behalf of a party, particularly in appellate proceedings, he assumes the role of a trustee of the client’s interests. It is incumbent upon him to scrutinize the record and offer proper legal advice, including the necessity of filing a cross-appeal or cross-objection for enhancement of compensation where warranted," the Court said.
Hence, it enhanced the compensation awarded to a motor accident victim who had suffered spinal cord injuries and was left bedridden.
The case arose from two claim petitions filed by a father and son after successive accidents. The son first sustained simple injuries in a car accident on December 5, 2014. While he was later being shifted in an ambulance, it met with another accident, causing grievous spinal cord injuries which left him bedridden.
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) awarded ₹33.02 lakh to the son and ₹20,000 to the father, fastening liability on United India Insurance Company.
The insurance company moved the High Court against the order.
It claimed that the spinal injury was from the first accident.
The claimants had not filed any cross-appeal or cross-objection seeking enhancement of compensation.
The Bench said that in motor accident cases, it is incumbent upon counsel to take all necessary steps to secure just and adequate compensation.
This was due to the failure of their lawyer to advise them properly.
“This Court is constrained to observe that the learned counsel who represented the claimant before this court has failed in his duty in not pursuing appropriate proceedings for enhancement of compensation, particularly in a case involving such grave and permanent disability,” the Court said.
It further observed that the legal profession demands diligence, competence and commitment to the client’s cause.
The High Court rejected the appeal by the insurer and enhanced the son’s compensation to ₹57.98 lakh.
Advocate G Prabhu Rajadurai appeared for the insurance company.
Advocate R Jim appeared for the claimant.
Advocate V Sakthivel appeared for the insurer of the vehicle involved in the first accident.
Advocate R Karunanithi appeared for one of the respondents.
[Read Judgment]