Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RUMA PAL, MARKANDEYA KATJU, JJ.
R.D. Nagpal - Appellant
Versus
Vijay Dutt and another - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2531 of 2006.
Decided on : 08-05-2006
Agent Representation - Consumer Protection Rules - The court interpreted the definition of 'agent' under the Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 and held that a duly authorized agent could represent a party before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, overriding the restriction under the Advocates Act, 1961.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was named as the opposite party in a dispute before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and had authorized an agent to represent him. The Commission refused to allow the agent to cross-examine the complainant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the wide definition of the word 'agent' under the Consumer Protection Rules allowed for representation by a duly authorized agent, despite the restriction under the Advocates Act, 1961. The court allowed the appeal and permitted the authorized agent to represent the appellant before the Commission.
Issues: The main issue was whether the authorized agent could represent the appellant before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the definition of 'agent' under the Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 and held that the wide definition allowed for representation by a duly authorized agent, overriding the restriction under the Advocates Act, 1961.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the court permitted the authorized agent to represent the appellant before the Commission in the pending proceedings.
ORDER :
Leave granted.
2. The grievance of the appellant is that he was named as the opposite party No. 1 in a dispute before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. He had authorised one Dr. M.S. Kamath to represent him before the Commission. However, the Commission refused to allow Dr. Kamath to cross- examine the complainant.
3. Repeated opportunities have been given by us to the respondents to file counter affidavit. No counter affidavit has been filed.
4. The only question to be decided is whether Dr. Kamath could represent the appellant. We have been taken through Section 2b Rule 14(1) 14(3) the Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 which defines an 'agent' as under :
"agent' means a person duly authorised by a party to present any complaint, appeal or reply on its behalf before the National Commission."
5. Rule 14(1) allows the complainant or his agents to file the complaint. similarly Rule 14(3) allows parties or their agents to appear before the National Commission. Given the wide definition of the word 'agent', there was no reason, if the Commission were otherwise satisfied that Dr. Kamath was authorised on behalf of the appellant, to refuse to allow Dr. Kamath to represent the appellant before it and to cross-examine the complainant.
6. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has relied upon section 33 of the Advocates Act, 1961. Section 33 makes it clear that Advocates alone will be entitled to practices before any Court or before any authority, etc. "except as otherwise provided in the Act or in any other law for the time being in force". The Consumer Protection Act read with the Rules would be "a law for the time being in force".
7. We, therefore, allow the appeal and permit Dr. Kamath or any other duly authorised agent of the appellant to represent the appellant before the Commission in the pending proceedings. However, we make it clear that the authorisation should be in writing.
Appeal allowed.
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
