Analysis –
“Can
a person under the cover of being an agent represent large number of persons
before forums created under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter “Act”)?”, this was the question addressed by the
Supreme Court in its recent decision where two appeals had been clubbed, one
filed by Bar Council Of India and the
other by C. Venkatachalam. The issue
in these appeals was whether a person, who is not a legal practitioner, can
represent a large number of parties before Consumer Forums. In general, these
forums have been established for a specific purpose and achieving that very
purpose in the most imperative obligation. It would be necessary here to know
the object lying behind the enactment of Consumer Protection Act. “Protection
of the interests of consumers” is the most significant reason which can be
attributed to this act, and interests of consumers can be preserved only if
they are able to obtain justice swiftly and economically. Taking recourse of
legal professionalism by means of hiring an advocate does not turn out viable
when the compensation demanded is not considerable enough. Rule 2(b) of
Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 defines the term “agent” as the person authorised
by a party to represent it before the consumer commission. It was contended on
behalf of the appellants that arguing before consumer forums needs legal
expertise, and further it was argued that arguing in front of the court is limited
only to a class of persons namely advocates.
Reliance was placed on Section 29 and 33 of the Advocates Act, 1961 which
respectively provide that only an advocate can practice and no person can
practice as an advocate unless enrolled. Cheap and Speedy redressal are some of
the most important mechanisms which need to be made exercisable by each and
every consumer, otherwise the very purpose for having the Act will be defeated.
But, at the same time it is equally important to ensure that agents in the name
of authorization start exploiting the procedure professionally. And, under such
a situation when it appears to the court that such agents are exercising this
right professionally, courts are empowered to terminate their authorization. It
would be important here, in this specific situation, to understand the
significant difference between a quasi-judicial body and a civil court. Quasi-judicial
bodies in general function in accordance with the Principle of Natural Justice, and further they are not bound to
follow procedural laws e.g. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 etc. On the other
hand, civil courts are obliged to function in accordance with the procedural
laws. Doubt as regards the misuse of this authority by the agents was handsomely
addressed by the Supreme Court, and it clearly opined that judges of Consumer
Forums are in position to see whether agents misuse this authority or not. This
case can be considered to be a landmark judgment setting a precedent for the
matters in relation to the consumer disputes where an agent represents a
consumer before the forum.
Case Name - C. Venkatachalam v. Ajitkumar C.
Shah & others , Bar Council Of India v. Sanjay R Kothari & Others
Treatises Citied by the
Supreme Court –
Ø Blackstone's
Commentaries on the Laws of England
Ø Administrative
Law by M.P. Jain
Ø H.M.
Seervai’s Constitutional Law of India
Cases Cited –
1. Interpretation
of Statutes –
R.M.D.
Chamarbaugwalla and Another v. Union of India and Another AIR 1957 SC 628-
“In interpreting the statute the
legislative intent is paramount and the duty of the Court is to act upon the
true intention of the legislature.”
Anandji Haridas
& Company Private
Limited v. Engineering
Mazdoor Sangh and Another
(1975) 3 SCC
862
“As
a general principle
of interpretation where the words
of a statute are plain, precise and unambiguous, the intention of the
Legislature is to be
gathered from the
language of the
statute itself and
no external evidence
such as parliamentary debates, reports of the Committees of the Legislature or
even the statement made by the
minister on the
introduction of a
measure or by
the framers of
the Act is
admissible to construe those
words.”
Kartar
Singh v. State of Punjab (1994) 3 SCC 569
“Though normally the plain ordinary
grammatical meaning of an enactment
affords the best
guide and the
object of interpreting
a statute is
to ascertain the intention of the legislature enacting it,
other methods of extracting extracting the meaning can be resorted to
if the language
is contradictory, ambiguous
or leads really
to absurd results
so as to keep at the real sense and meaning”
District Mining
Officer and Others
v. Tata Iron
and Steel Company
and Another (2001) 7 SCC 358
"A statute is an edict of the
legislature and in construing a statute, it is necessary to seek the intention
of its maker. A statute has to be construed according to the intent
of them that make it and the duty of the court is to act upon the true
intention of the legislature. If a statutory provision is open to more than one
interpretation, the court has to choose that interpretation which represents
the true intention of the legislature."
Bhatia International
v. Bulk Trading
S.A. and Another
(2002) 4 SCC
105
"The conventional way of
interpreting a statute is to seek the intention of its makers. If a statutory
provision is open to more than one
interpretation then the Court has to
choose that interpretation which represents the true intention of the
legislature."
2. Consumer
Disputes
Lucknow Development
Authority v. M.K. Gupta
(1994) 1 SCC
243
“The provisions
of the Act
have to be construed in favour of the consumer to
achieve the purpose of enactment as it is a social benefit oriented
legislation. The primary duty of the court while construing the provisions of
such an Act is to adopt a constructive approach
subject to that it should not do any violence to the language of the
provisions and is not contrary to the attempted objective of the enactment. In
other words, according to the purpose of enactment the interest of the consumer
is paramount.”
Laxmi
Engineering Works v. P.S.G. Industrial
Institute (1995) 3 SCC 583
Dr.
J.J. Merchant and Others v. Shrinath Chaturvedi (2002) 6 SCC 635
"7. ...One
of the main
objects of the
Act is to provide speedy
and simple redressal
to consumer disputes and
for that a
quasi-judicial machinery is sought to
be set up
at the district, State
and Central level.
These quasi-judicial bodies
are required to
observe the principles of natural justice and have been
empowered to give relief of a
specific nature and to award,
wherever appropriate, compensation
to consumers. Penalties
for non-compliance with
the orders given
by the quasi-judicial bodies
have also been
provided. The object and
purpose of enacting the
Act is to render simple,
inexpensive and speedy remedy to the consumers with complaints against defective goods and deficient services and the
benevolent piece of
legislation intended to
protect a large
body of consumers from exploitation
would be defeated.
Prior to the
Act, consumers were
required to approach the civil
court for securing justice for the wrong done to them and it is a known fact
that decision in a suit takes years..”
Common Cause,
A Registered Society
v. Union of
India and others
(1997) 10 SCC 729,
"The object
of the legislation,
as the Preamble
of the Act proclaims, is
"for better protection of
the interests of consumers".
Click Here for the Judgment
No comments :
Post a Comment