Case: C. Venkatachalam &amp; Another Vs. Ajitkumar C. Shah &amp; Others

2. A complaint bearing no. 428 of 2000 of alleged deficiency in service was filed before the South Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mumbai (for short, Consumer Forum) against the two tour operators. During the pendency of the complaint, applications were filed by the opposite parties contending that the authorized agent should not be granted permission to appear on behalf of the complainants as he was not enrolled as an Advocate. The Consumer Forum considered the applications and held that the authorized agent had no right to act and plead before the Consumer Forum as he was not enrolled as an advocate3. In complaint bearing no.167 of 1997 filed before the Consumer Forum, the majority expressed the view that the authorized agents have a right to file, act, appear, argue the complaint to its logical conclusion before the Consumer Agencies. The issue was taken to the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, State Commission) which stayed the hearing of the matters in which authorized agents were appearing and refused to grant stay where authorized agents were injuncted from appearing before the Consumer Forum. As a result, the proceedings in a large number of cases where the authorized agents were appearing had come to standstill4. The interim order passed by the State Commission was challenged in two writ petitions before the Bombay High Court. The petitions were allowed by the Division Bench. The High Court held that the Consumer Fora constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 have trappings of a civil court but are not civil courts within the meaning of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure5. The High Court in the impugned judgment held that a party before the District Consumer Forum/State Commission cannot be compelled to engage services of an advocate6. The High Court further held that the Act of 1986 is a special piece of legislation for the better protection of the interests of consumers. The Act has been enacted to give succour and relief to the affected or aggrieved consumers quickly with nil or small expense. The Consumer Forum created under the Act of 1986 is uninhibited by the requirement of court fee or the formal procedures of court - civil or criminal.....any recognized consumers Association can espouse his cause......Even the Central Government or State Governments can act on his/their behalf...restrictive meaning shall not be consistent with the objectives of the Act of 1986... The right to appear, therefore, includes right to address the Court, examining, cross-examining witnesses, oral submissions etc7. The Division Bench also held that the right of audience inheres in favour of authorized agents of the parties in the proceedings before the District Consumer Forum and the State Commission and such right is not inconsistent or in conflict with the provisions of the Advocates Act, 19618. The Division Bench also observed that the right of an advocate to practise is not an absolute right but is subject to other provisions of the Act. According to the Division Bench, permitting the authorized agents to represent parties to the proceedings before the District Forum/State Commission cannot be said to practise law9. The Division Bench also held that there are various statutes like Income Tax Act, Sales Tax Act and the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act which permit non-advocates to represent the parties before the authorities under those Acts and those non-advocates appearing before those Forums for the parties cannot be said to practise law. The Rules of 2000 framed under Act of 1986 permit authorized agents to appear for the parties and such appearance of authorized agents cannot be said to be inconsistent with section 33 of Advocates Act10. The Division Bench also dealt with the disciplinary aspect of the matter and held that if authorized agent appearing for the party to the proceedings misbehaves or exhibits violent behaviour or does not maintain the decency and decorum of the District Forum or State Commission or interferes with the smooth progress of the case then it is always open to such District Forum or State Commission to pass an appropriate order refusing such authorized agent the audience in a given case11. These appeals have been preferred before this court against the impugned judgment.12. A two-judge Bench of this Court on 21.2.2007 referred these matters to a larger Bench in view of the importance of the matter. The order dated 21.2.2007 reads as under:The basic issue involved in these appeals is whether a person under the purported cover of being an agent can represent large number of persons before the forums created under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (In short the `Act) and the Rules made thereunder. According to the appellant Rule relating to agents cannot be used to by passing stipulations under the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961 (in short the `Advocates Act), more particularly under Sections 29, 31 and 32. Rule 2(b) of the Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 (in short the `The Rules) defines an `agent as under:agent means a person duly authorized by a party to present any complaint, appeal or reply on its behalf before the National CommissionSimilarly, Rule 14(1) and 14(3) also deal with the acts which an agent can undertakeLearned counsel for the respondents has submitted that in Civil Appeal No. 2531 of 2006 (R.D. Nagpal Vs. Vijay Dutt & Anr.) this Court has accepted the stand that even a Doctor is authorised by a party can cross examine the complainantSo far as individual cases are concerned, it may not present difficulty. But the question is whether somebody who is not a legal practitioner, can represent large number of parties before their forums thereby frustrating objects embodied in the Advocates ActIt is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that a large number of persons who are otherwise not entitled to appear before the forums are doing so under the garb of being agents. As the matter is of great importance, we refer the same to a larger BenchPapers may be placed before Honble the Chief Justice of India so that necessary orders can be passed for placing these matters before the appropriate Bench.. Honble the Chief Justice of India has referred these appeals before a three judge Bench.

Reasoning: 40. A perusal of Chapter II clearly shows that the statute seeks to protect the `consumer of goods and services in every possible way. It aims at providing a speedy and inexpensive remedy. Any interpretation of the provisions of the 1986 Act and the rules framed thereunder must promote this objective of the enactment.43. Such an interpretation is not only literally correct but also promotes the declared objective of the statute. It helps the claimant and the defendant equally. It does not violate any provision of the Advocates Act.51. The appellants submitted before the High Court that the complainant may appear through its authorized agent, but, that doesnt mean that authorized agent is empowered to act, appear or plead on behalf of the party before the State Commission or the District Forum as a lawyer. According to the appellants (Bar Council of India and advocate), the agent appointed by the complainant is empowered only to present any complaint, appeal or rely on behalf of the party to the complaint before the Consumer Forum by physically remaining present on the date/dates of hearing. This contention was rejected by the Division Bench of the High Court52. According to the judgment of this Court in Harishankar Rastogi (supra), a non-advocate can appear with the permission of the Court. The Court may, in an appropriate case, even after grant of permission withdraw it if the representative proves himself reprehensible. It is only a privilege granted by the Court and it depends entirely on the discretion of the court.The clear interpretation of the Rules is that the authorised agent appointed by the (consumer) complainant may appear before the Consumer Fora. The Consumer Fora may, in its discretion, either dismiss the appeal or decide it on the merit of the case. In this view of the matter, it is abundantly clear that the authorized agent of the complainant can act and plead before the State Tribunal otherwise the complaint is liable to the dismissed.It is the bounden duty of the courts to discern legislative intention and interpret the statutes accordingly. The instant case Act and Rules have made specific provisions by which the agents have been permitted to plead and appear on behalf of the parties before the Consumer Forums. Therefore, to interpret it differently would be contrary to legislative intention.69. A perusal thereof shows that the Regulations appear to have been framed by the National Commission in exercise of the power conferred by section 30A with the previous approval of the Central Government. The footnote indicates that these were published in the Gazette of India dated May 31, 2005.70. Specifically, Regulation 16 inter alia makes provision to ensure that the agents do not indulge in any malpractice or commit misconduct82. It is the bounden duty and obligation of the Court to carefully discern the legislative intention and articulate the same. In the instant case we are not really called upon to discern legislative intention because there is specific rule defining the agents and the provisions of permitting them to appear before the Consumer Forums. The agents have been permitted to appear to accomplish the main object of the act of disposal of consumers complaints expeditiously with no costs or small costs83. In our considered view the High Court was fully justified in observing that the authorised agents do not practise law when they are permitted to appear before the District Forums and the State Commissions84. In the impugned judgment the High Court aptly observed that many statutes, such as, Sales Tax, Income Tax and Competition Act also permit non-advocates to represent the parties before the authorities and those non-advocates cannot be said to practise law. On the same analogy those non- advocates who appear before Consumer fora also cannot be said to practise law. We approve the view taken by the High Court in the impugned judgment85. The legislature has given an option to the parties before the Consumer Forums to either personally appear or be represented by an `authorized agent or by an advocate, then the court would not be justified in taking away that option or interpreting the statute differently86. The functioning, conduct and behaviour of authorized agents can always be regulated by the Consumer Forums. Advocates are entitled as of right to practise before Consumer Fora but this privilege cannot be claimed as a matter of right by anyone else87. When the legislature has permitted authorized agents to appear on behalf of the complainant, then the courts cant compel the consumer to engage the services of an advocate.88. However, at this stage we hasten to add that the National Commission being aware of a possibility of misuse of the right by an agent had framed Regulation 30-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, wherein certain restrictions on the right of audience and also certain precautions to rule out any misuse of liberty granted has been taken by way of framing Regulation 16.These provisions are enacted for providing proper guidelines and safeguards for regulating appearance and audience of the agents. The aforesaid regulation in our considered opinion is a reasonable restriction on the right to appear by an agent. Such reasonable restrictions as provided for are to be strictly adhered to and complied with by the Consumer Forum hearing cases under the Consumer Protection Act so as to rule out any misuse of the privilege granted. In terms of the said regulation and other regulations as provided and framed by the National Commission and as approved by the Parliament of India, the Consumer Forum has the right to prevent an authorized agent to appear in case it is found and believed that he is using the said right as a profession. The Consumer Forums being empowered with such Regulations would be in a position to judge whether the agent appearing before it is in any manner exercising such privileges granted for any ulterior purpose90. In the foregoing paragraph, it has been indicated that many statutes and Acts in India permit non-advocates to represent the parties before the authorities and forums.91. In other jurisdictions also, non-advocates are permitted to appear before quasi-judicial fora or subordinate courts. In most of these jurisdictions, specific rules have been framed for the regulation of qualifications, conduct and ethical behaviour of the non-advocates appearing in these fora92. In most jurisdictions, the statutes or court rules impose some form of restrictions on appearances of non-advocate representatives in quasi-judicial fora or subordinate courts. Restrictions on non-advocates agents vary significantly in terms of their specificity, but most forums have rules granting them some discretion in admitting or refusing the appearance of a non-advocate representative.Social Security Administration93. In addition to administering Social Security Retirement and Disability payments, the(SSA) handles disputes arising from Social Security Payments or the lack thereof. If a current or former recipient of social security believes that he has been wrongfully denied some or all of his benefit amount, he may first apply for reconsideration.