Back
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
R.M. Lodha & D.B. Bhosale, JJ.
SANJAY R. KOTHARI—Petitioner
versus
SOUTH MUMBAI CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM—Respondent
W.P. Nos. 1147 of 2000 and 145 of 2002—Decided on 4.9.2002
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 - RULES 2000 - ADVOCATES ACT, 1961 - SECTIONS 29, 32, 33 - RIGHT OF AUDIENCE - AUTHORISED AGENTS - CONSUMER FORA - WHETHER AUTHORISED AGENTS CAN REPRESENT PARTIES BEFORE CONSUMER FORA - HELD, YES
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, who are advocates by profession, filed a complaint against respondent Nos. 2 and 3 tour operators before respondent No. 1 - Consumer Forum complaining deficiency in their service. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 filed an application objecting the appearance of Shri Jahangir Gai who was appearing as authorised agent of the petitioners. The petitioners filed their reply to the said application. The said application was heard by respondent No. 1 and by order dated 5th April, 2002 held that Shri Jahangir Gai, the authorised agent of the petitioners, had no right to plead before the Consumer Forum since he is not enrolled as an Advocate under the Advocates Act, 1961. The second writ petition (Writ Petition No. 1425 of 2002) has been filed by original complainant being petitioner No. 1 and his “authorised agent” being petitioner No. 2. It is the case of petitioner No. 1 that he has filed Complaint No. 167 on 17th June, 1997 before the Consumer Forum seeking reliefs against respondent No. 1 for the deficiency in their service. Petitioner No. 2 was appearing for petitioner No. 1 as his authorised agent in the said complaint. Respondent No. 1 was being represented by the respondent No. 2 Advocate before Consumer Forum. Respondent No. 2 filed an application objecting appearance of petitioner No. 2 for petitioner No. 1 as his agent contending that addressing the Consumer Forum amounts to pleading and only an Advocate enrolled under the Advocates Act is vested with that right. The said application was heard by the Consumer Forum consisting of three members. Two Members passed an order on 25th September, 2001 by which they rejected the application of respondent No. 1 while third Member of the Consumer Forum, who was incidentally the Chairman, passed dissenting order dated 26th November, 2001. The majority judgment was carried in Revision Application No. 150 of 2001 by respondent No. 1 before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra State (for short, State Commission). Along with the revision filed by respondent No. 1, several other revisions, where similar issue was involved, the State Commission stayed the hearing of matters in which the authorised agents were appearing and refused to grant stay where authorised agents were injuncted from appearing before the Forum. The petitioners have stated that resultantly hundreds of the matters before Consumer Forum where the authorised agents were appearing, have come to standstill.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that a party to the proceeding before the District Forum/State Commission has right to authorise a person of his choice to represent him and appearance of such agent authorised by the party on the date of hearing before District Forum/State Commission is not restricted to physical appearance but includes a terms of Rule 4(7), 8(7) or 9(6) of Rules of 2000 to examine and cross-examine the witnesses, address the Court and take part in the proceedings as the case may be. Any other view may defeat the very objectives for which Act of 1986 was enacted. The complainant to the proceeding before District Forum/State Commission who cannot conduct the case himself shall be compelled to engage the services of legal practitioner when the law-makers intended to provide remedy with nil or no expense.
Issues: Whether authorised agents can represent parties before Consumer Fora.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the right of audience inheres in favour of authorised agents of the parties to the proceedings before District Consumer Forum and the State Commission and such right is not inconsistent or in conflict with the provisions of Advocates Act.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petitions and quashed and set aside the impugned orders.
D.B. Bhosale, J.—These two writ petitions involve common issue as to whether parties before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short “Consumer Forum”) and Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, “State Commission”) are entitled to be represented by authorised agents who are not enrolled under the Advocates Act, 1961 and such Authorised Agents have the right of audience. The Counsel appearing for the parties confined their arguments only on the aforesaid issue and hence we have not gone into the facts and merits of the complaints filed before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short, “Consumer Forum”) by the petitioners.
2. The petitioners in the first writ petition (Writ Petition No. 1147 of 2002), who are Advocates by profession, filed complaint bearing No. 428 of 2000 against respondent Nos. 2 and 3 tour operators before respondent No. 1 - Consumer Forum complaining deficiency in their service. It is the case of the petitioners that after numerous adjournments and at the stage of filing affidavit of evidence, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 filed an application dated 22nd September, 2001 objecting the appearance of Shri Jahangir Gai who was appearing as authorised agent of the petitioners. The petitioners filed their reply to the said application. The said application was heard by respondent No. 1 and by order dated 5th April, 2002 held that Shri Jahangir Gai, the authorised agent of the petitioners, had no right to plead before the Consumer Forum since he is not enrolled as an Advocate under the Advocates Act, 1961 (for short “Advocates Act”). The said application was disposed of by common order dated 5th April, 2002, in Complaint Nos. 428 of 2000 and 304 of 2000, which is impugned in the said writ petition.
3. The second writ petition (Writ Petition No. 1425 of 2002) has been filed by original complainant being petitioner No. 1 and his “authorised agent” being petitioner No. 2. It is the case of petitioner No. 1 that he has filed Complaint No. 167 on 17th June, 1997 before the Consumer Forum seeking reliefs against respondent No. 1 for the deficiency in their service. Petitioner No. 2 was appearing for petitioner No. 1 as his authorised agent in the said complaint. Respondent No. 1 was being represented by the respondent No. 2 Advocate before Consumer Forum. Respondent No. 2 filed an application objecting appearance of petitioner No. 2 for petitioner No. 1 as his agent contending that addressing the Consumer Forum amounts to pleading and only an Advocate enrolled under the Advocates Act is vested with that right. The said application was heard by the Consumer Forum consisting of three members. Two Members passed an order on 25th September, 2001 by which they rejected the application of respondent No. 1 while third Member of the Consumer Forum, who was incidentally the Chairman, passed dissenting order dated 26th November, 2001. The majority judgment was carried in Revision Application No. 150 of 2001 by respondent No. 1 before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra State (for short, State Commission). Along with the revision filed by respondent No. 1, several other revisions, where similar issue was involved, the State Commission stayed the hearing of matters in which the authorised agents were appearing and refused to grant stay where authorised agents were injuncted from appearing before the Forum. The petitioners have stated that resultantly hundreds of the matters before Consumer Forum where the authorised agents were appearing, have come to standstill. Feeling aggrieved by the interim order dated 21st December, 2001 passed by the State Commission, the petitioners have impugned the said order in second writ petition.
4. Though in the aforesaid writ petitions, the issue involved is common, the difference is that in first writ petition “the consumer” is before the Court contending that he has a right to engage an “agent” to act, appear and plead before the Consumer Fo
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
