Consumer Forum and Authority of an Agent to Represent a Consumer

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

 "10.  A  review  of  the  provisions  of  the  Act  discloses  that  the  quasi-judicial bodies/authorities/agencies  created  by  the  Act  known  as  District  Forums,  State Commissions and the National Commission are not courts though invested with some of the  powers  of  a  civil  court.  They  are  quasi-judicial  tribunals  brought  into  existence  to render  inexpensive  and  speedy  remedies  to  consumers.  It  is  equally  clear  that  these forums/commissions  were  not supposed to supplant but supplement the  existing  judicial system.  The  idea  was  to  provide  an  additional  forum  providing  inexpensive  and  speedy resolution  of  disputes  arising  between  consumers  and  suppliers  of  goods  and  services. The  forum  so  created  is  uninhibited  by  the  requirement  of  court  fee  or  the  formal procedures  of  a  court.  Any  consumer  can  go  and  file  a  complaint.  Complaint  need  not necessarily  be  filed  by  the  complainant  himself;  any  recognized  consumers'  association can espouse his cause. Where a large number of consumers have a similar complaint, one or  more  can  file  a  complaint  on  behalf  of  all.  Even  the  Central  Government  and  State Governments can act on his/their behalf. The idea was to help the consumers get justice and fair treatment in the matter of goods and services purchased and availed by them in a market  dominated  by  large  trading  and  manufacturing  bodies.  Indeed,  the  entire  Act revolves round the consumer and is designed to protect his interest.

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