SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

UNION TERRITORY CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.K. Srivastava, President &
Maj. Gen. S.P. Kapoor, Member
R.P. Vohra—Appellant
versus
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, PUBLIC
HEALTH DIVISION NO. 2 & ANR.—Respondents
Appeal Case No. 279 of 2004—Decided on 23.8.2004

Advocates:
Counsels for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Mr. U.K. Agnihotri, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. K.K. Gupta, Advocate.

The court interpreted the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act liberally, allowing the complaint to be filed through a person holding a special power of attorney, even if not personally by the complainant.

Headnote:

Power of Attorney - Consumer Protection Act - The court interpreted the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 liberally, allowing the complaint to be filed through a person holding a special power of attorney, even if not personally by the complainant.

Fact of the Case:

The complaint was dismissed by the District Forum on the ground that it was filed by an unauthorized person for and on behalf of the complainant. The appellant contended that a special power of attorney and a general power of attorney were executed by the complainant in favor of the person who filed the complaint.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the person filing the complaint, although not the complainant personally, held a special power of attorney empowering him to act on behalf of the complainant. The court held that the complaint should not have been rejected on technical grounds and remanded the case for disposal according to law.

Issues: The main issue was whether the complaint filed through a person holding a special power of attorney was valid under the Consumer Protection Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act liberally, allowing the complaint to be filed through a person holding a special power of attorney, even if not personally by the complainant.

Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the complaint case was remanded to the District Forum for disposal according to law.

ORDER

Mr. Justice K.K. Srivastava, President—This is an appeal filed by the complainant against judgment and order dated 1.10.2001 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) vide which Complaint Case No. 1303 of 2001 was dismissed on the ground that the complaint had been filed by an unauthorized person for and on behalf of the complainant Shri R.P. Vohra. The complaint has in fact been filed by Shri R.P. Vohra through his General Power of Attorney Shri Kartar Singh Verma.

2. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended before us that on the same date i.e., 26.6.1995, a special power of attorney as well as General Power of Attorney were executed by Shri R.P. Vohra in favour of Shri Kartar Singh Verma and at the time of submission of the final arguments, the copy of General Power of Attorney in favour of Shri Kartar Singh Verma had been filed before the District Forum dismissed the complaint on the ground that the complaint was filed through an unauthrised person/stranger.

3. A perusal of the original record of the complaint case shows that Shri Kartar Singh Verma son of Shri Suggan Singh resident of House No. 5515/3, Modern Housing Complex, Category-II, Manimajra filed his affidavit and in para No. 1 of the affidavit, he deposed, inter alia as under:

“...The complainant has included in possession of the said house to his general power of attorney i.e., the deponent.......”

4. The respondent filed affidavit of Shri I.S. Sokhey, Superintending Engineer (B and R), Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh who referred to in para 3 of his affidavit about the Special Power of Attorney which related to sell, alienate and transfer residential flat and further deposed that no General Power of Attorney has been produced on record to show that Shri R.P. Vohra has authorized Shri Kartar Singh Verma to institute the complaint on his behalf.

5. In our considered view Shri Kartar Singh Verma is not a person who is totally a stranger to the appellant as he had hold a special power of attorney, which empowered him to do the following acts:

“To sell, transfer my said residential flat to enter into such agreement/deeds, to sign and execute all such transfer/sale deeds for the transfer of proprietary rights of the said plot and the building to be erected thereon, to give all such papers and documents pertaining thereto, to present the same before the Registrar/Sub-Registrar of the circle concerned for its registration, to admit its due execution and the contents therein to be true and correct, to apply for and obtain the No Objection Certificate and Income Tax Clearance Certificate and to execute and sign applications, forms, statements, bonds, deeds, indemnity bonds, affidavits, agreements for No. 43-A, etc. etc. and other necessary permissions for the said purpose, under his own signatures.”

6. This Special Power of Attorney is in respect of the House No. 5513/3, Modern Housing Complex, Category-II, Manimajra, U.T., Chandigarh in respect of which the disputed bills regarding the compensation of water, etc. had been received and challenged. In other words, Shri Kartar Singh Verma holds Special Power of Attorney in respect of the aforesaid dwelling unit regarding which the bills in question are under challenge and requiring adjudication of the District Forum. The provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short hereinafter referred to as the C.P. Act) are not so rigid so as to enable only the complainant personally to present the complaint. The complaint can also be sent by the complainant through post including the registered post. The provisions of the C.P. Act are to be interpreted liberally.

7. After going through the original file of the complaint case, we were unable to come across any document of general power of attorney in favour of Shri Kartar Singh Verma son of Shri Suggan Singh. Be that as it may, the complaint deserve adjudication on merit. Shri Kar







Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top