P C MISHRA Vs. SKY VIEW HOME CABLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal the main question involved, though short, a decision on the issue either way is of great public importance. The question is : whether an authorised agent of a complainant can plead and argue a case before the Consumer Forum The District Forum, Khurda at Bhubaneswar, has held that such an agent, if not an Advocate, cannot plead on behalf of a party.1. Complainant through his authorised agent Ulamani Acharya, representing a non-Government voluntary organisation, namely 'world of Mothers', filed the complaint case against the Sky View Home Cables. A point was raised by the opposite parties that the authorised agent was not competent to argue the matter, since he was not an Advocate and does not held a licence to practise. The District Forum on hearing both sides held that the authorised agent is only competent to appear for the complainant and take all steps on behalf of the complainant, but he cannot argue the matter.

(2.) Mr. Acharya, being the Authorised Agent, drew our attention to various provisions of the Consumer Protection Act ('the Act', for short ). The main thrust of his argument is that the Act is a beneficial statute enacted to provide an easy and inexpensive redressal agency to the general public. He further argued that the Act does not anywhere restrict/prohibit in specific language an Authorised Agent to take up the cause of a complainant before the Consumer Forum only up to a certain specified limit. It is further stressed that the Act nowhere postulates that the complainant would be bound to take the help or assistance of an Advocate. Since the provisions of the Act mention about an Authorised Agent competent to file a complaint, it necessarily implies that all other steps necessary for furtherance of the case towards its conclusion can be taken by the said Authorised Agent and that would include also the right to argue.

(3.) Mr. S. S. Das, learned Counsel for respondent No.1 raised the following points for consideration : firstly, the appeal is incompetent since the order is not a final order touching any of the disputes as enumerated under Sec.14 read with Sec.15 of the Act. Secondly, it was argued that the appeal memo filed does not contain the grounds of appeal and thereby violates the procedural mandate, as provided in the Code of Civil Procedure; the principles of which and certain provisions of which are being made applicable to the Consumer Forums. Thirdly, referring to Sec.29 of the Advocates Act, it was strenuously urged that only one type of persons are competent to practise in the Court of Law and they are only the Advocates and none else. He further stressed that an Authorised Agent is not competent to argue a case. Under the provisions of the Act such an Authorised Agent is only competent to file a complaint and take such steps on behalf of the complainant as may be necessary. Thus, Mr. Das supported the judgment in its entirety.