PRARDUMNA RAI Vs. DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal raises a short question, but an important question. The lady (complainant) engaged Prardumna Rai, General Secretary, BCMS Office, Near Rly. Station, R.K.B. Path, Dibrugarh, Assam to appear and conduct her case before the District Forum at Dibrugarh. That is available at Annexure -A. In terms of this authorization, the person concerned appeared before the District Forum, but the District Forum by relying on the provision of Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, did not allow the person concerned to represent the lady. A bare look at Section 12 will show that it lays down the manner in which complaint shall be made. It des not speak of appearance of a person to conduct a case. Section 12 in its entirety is quoted below :

(2.) THE learned District Forum did not look to the definition of Agent as given under the Assam State Consumer Protection Rules, 1989. Rule 2(b) of the aforesaid Rules defines Agent as follows :

(3.) SO , it is crystal clear that a person may be authorized by the complainant or the appellant to appear and conduct the case on his/her behalf. It is not necessary that, such a person should be a legal practitioner. A legal practitioner as is commonly known is engaged as he or she may have the better grip of the case, but there is no bar under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 read with the aforesaid Rules that a person being duly authorized cannot represent the complainant or the appellant. No doubt, the Forum in an appropriate case may prohibit such a person from appearing in the case, if it comes to a finding that the appearance of such a person is a nuisance or it des not serve the purpose of the Forum or of the complainant or the appellant.