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 Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, did not allow the person concerned to represent the lady. A bare look at Sec.12 will show that it lays down the manner in which complaint shall be made. It does not speak of appearance of a person to conduct a case. Sec.12 in its entirety is quoted below : "12. Manner in which complaint shall be made.-A complaint, in relation to any goods sold or delivered or any service provided, may be filed with a District Forum by,- (a) the consumer to whom such goods are sold or delivered or such service provided; (b) any recognised consumer association, whether the consumer to whom the goods sold or delivered or service provided is a member of such association or not; or (c) the Central or the State Government. Explanation : For the purpose of this Section "recognized consumer association" means any voluntary consumer association registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), or any other law for the time being in force. "

(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 : " 'agent' means a person duly authorized by a party to present any complaint or appeal or reply on its behalf before the State Commission or the District Forum;" Rule 4 (8) provides as follows : "if during the proceedings conducted under Sec.13, District Forum fixes a date for hearing of the parties, it shall be obligatory on the complainant and opposite party or its authorized agent to appear before the District Forum on such date of hearing or any other date to which hearing could be adjourned. Where the complainant or his authorized agent fails to appear before the District Forum on such day, the District Forum may in its discretion either dismiss the complaint for default or decided it on merit. Where the opposite party or its authorized agent fails to appear on the day of hearing the District Forum may decide the complaint ex parte. "

(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 does not serve the purpose of the Forum or of the complainant or the appellant. In that view of the matter, we allow this appeal. Quash the judgment of the learned District Forum and allow the person authorized to appear and conduct the case on behalf of the lady (complainant ).