Back
GUJARAT STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AHMEDABAD
Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.S. Parikh,
President & Dr. M.K. Joshi, Member
MADHAV SADASHIV CHOUGULE—Appellant/Respondent
versus
GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM DISTRICT—Respondent/Petitioner
Appeal No. 261 of 2000 with Civil Revn.
Application No. 50 of 2001—Decided on 18.4.2002
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant/Respondent: Authorised Representative.
For the Respondent/Petitioner:Mr. J.V. Bhairavya, Advocate.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986-Section 12 read with Rule 2(h) of Gujarat Consumer Protection Rules, 1988-Person competent to represent-Authorised agent, meaning of-Appearance on basis of a Purshis on a simple paper signed by his brother-Brother does not fall into any class of person-Mere purshis filed saying that some one is authorized to appear will not come within definition of power of attorney-No entitled to plead and argue case.
Admittedly Chougule is not an advocate and therefore he cannot appear, plead and argue a matter taking advantage of the provisions of the Advocates Act, is not a person duly authorised by a party to present any complaint, appeal or reply on its behalf and plead and argue the matter before this Commission.
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 7-Contempt proceedings-District Forum awarded compensation and directed Telephone Department to give detailed bills for disputed bills-Compensation amount paid but bill not given-District Forum in contempt application recorded conviction directing G.M. of Telephone Department to suffer simple imprisonment for 10 days-Unsustainable -Giving of detailed bill not possible as there was no technical feasibility available in concerned telephone exchange-No deliberate disobedience-Contempt application quashed.
It is not in dispute that quite before the filing of the execution application. Assistant General Manager accorded sanction for payment of Rs. 1,500 on account of compensation and cost to the complainant as per the impugned order passed by the learned forum and thus there was a process of abiding by the order passed by the learned forum undertaken by the concerned authority of the Telecom District. Pursuing further the said process the opponent Telecom District issued cheque for the full amount as per the first direction of the impugned order in favour of the complainant. The aforesaid representative fairly conceded that cheque was received by the complainant and therefore there was no disobedience of that part of the order on the part of the concerned Authority of the opponent Telecom District. Only question is with regard to compliance of the second part of the order. In this connection reference has been made by the foresaid representative to letter dated 18.9.1997 which inter alia says that regarding the detailed statement of STD calls made on the telephone in question, list would be along with the bi-monthly bills depending upon the technical feasibility. The aforesaid representative therefore submitted that although there was a process to comply with the 2nd direction as per the aforesaid letter, it was not complied with. To this, it has been submitted that there was no technical feasibility as the exchange in question did not have facility at the relevant point of time for recording of the individual STD calls with their respective point of time for recording of the individual STD calls with their respective numbers. Therefore, there was a physical impossibility on the part of the opponent Telecom District as no print out could ever be taken out on account of non-availability of the technical feasibility. It is this part of the defence of the opponent Telecom Department which clearly appears to have escaped the attention of the learned Forum while deciding the execution application [Contempt Application] There was no reason for the opponent Telecom District not to send a print out if it was technically feasible. The concerned officers are present before this Commission and they fairly say that there was no technical feasibility available and therefore it was physically impossible for any human being to send such a detailed bill. In our considered opinion therefore in the eye of law under Section 27 of the Act, there was no deliberate disobedience of the 2nd part of the impugned order directing the opponent Telecom District to send detailed bills.
In our considered opinion, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is not a case where it can ever be held that the opponent Telecom District or any of the authorities of the opponent Telecom District is guilty of disobedience of the direction issued under the impugned order.
Mr. Justice M.S. Parikh, President—Both these proceedings arise from order dated 25.9.2000 and 27.11.2001 respectively passed in Consumer Protection Case No. 11/1999 and Contempt Application No. 10 of 2002 by the learned Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Valsad. At the outset the locus standi of Mr. Vasant S. Chougule who represents the original complainant before this Commission was questioned. Insofar as the lagal position is concerned, Mr. Vasant Chougule submitted definition of agent as appearing in Rule 2(b) of the Gujarat Consumer Protection Rules, 1988, which reads as under :
“Agent means a person duly authorised by a party to present any complaint, appeal or reply on its behalf before the State Commission or the District Forum.”
Mr. Chougule, therefore, submitted that since there is a Purshi on a simple paper signed by his brother submitted to this Commission authorising him to appear and argue the matter, he can do so. We are unable to accept his argument in view of the fact that even the aforesaid rule uses the words “duly authorised”. The proceedings before a Consumer Forum or a Commission under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are necessarily quasi judicial proceeding. The parties who can appear and plead their cases are set out in the Act itself. Having gone through the provisions, a brother does not fall into any class of these persons. Then, there is a Central Act styled Power of Attorney Act, 1882. According to definition of Power of Attorney contained in Section 1A, it would include `any instrument empowering a specified person to act for and in the name of the person executing it’. According to Section 2 thereof, a Power of Attorney has to be executed in the prescribed manner. Needless to say that the power of attorney has to be executed on a prescribed stamp paper. Mere Purshi filed before a Court saying that some one is authorised to appear will not come within the definition of the power of attorney. Therefore, the complainant who is not present before this Commission and who does not want to remain present before this Commission could not have legally authorised his brother Vasant Chougule to appear and plead his cause. Admittedly Vasant Chougule is not an Advocate and, therefore, he cannot appear, plead and argue a matter taking advantage of the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961. Besides, the above rule speaks of presentation of pleadings. Hence taking any view of the matter, Vasant Chougule is not a person duly authorised by a party to present any complaint, appeal or reply on its behalf and plead and argue the matter before this Commission.
2. In spite of aforesaid position, since there is urgency of the matter, the learned Counsel for the opponent Telecom District [revision petitioner] was persuaded to give consent to allow Mr. Vasant Chougule to make his submission on behalf of his brother, the original complainant.
3. The complainant approached the learned Forum initially with a grievance that bill No. 359 dated 1.11.1996 for the period 16.8.1996 to 15.10.1996 for 172 calls and another bill No. 121 dated 1.7.1997 for 607 calls pertaining to his telephone No. 82893 were excessive. The complainant paid up the bills but made a grievance before the learned Forum that the bills were excessive. He, therefore, called upon the opponent Telecom District to furnish particulars of the bills making wild allegations in his complaint. The opponent submitted written objections to the complaint. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Forum directed the opponent Telecom District to give details for the disputed bills and also directed it to pay Rs. 1,000/- by way of compensation with running interest @ 18% p.a. and cost of Rs. 500/-. The complainant has preferred appeal against the impugned order inter alia on the ground that there was STD facility attached to the telephone of the complainant, that the bills were excessive, that the letters written by the complainant were witho
