LexC. VENKATACHALAM versus AJITKUMAR C. SHAH AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c [2011) 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 814 C. VENKATACHALAM v. AJITKUMAR C. SHAH AND OTHERS (Civil Appeal No. 868 of 2003) AUGUST 29, 2011 [DALVEER BHANDARI DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.] Consumer Protection Act, 1986: Historical perspective of the consumer movement - Discussed. Appearance before consumer fora by"authorised agent" - Permissibility - Whether authorized agents, who are not D advocates, can file complaints and represent persons before the Consumer fora as a lawyer and whether this would not violate the Advocates Act - Held: The appearance of authorized agents is not inconsistent with s. 33 of the Advocates Act - The legislature in its wisdom has granted E permission to the authorized agents because most of the cases before the Consumer Forums are small cases of relatively poor people where legal intricacies are not involved and great legal skills are not required, which may be handled by the authorized agents - The other reason is that a large F number of litigants may not be able to afford heavy professional fees of trained advocates, therefore, authorized agents have been permitted - The agents have been permitted to appear to accomplish the main object of the act of disposal of consumers' complaints expeditiously with no G costs or small costs - The High Court was fully justified in observing that the authorised agents do not practise Jaw when they are permitted to appear before the District Forums and the State Commissions - The legislature has given an option to the parties before the Consumer Forums to either H 814 C. VENKATACHALAM v. AJITKUMAR C. SHAH AND 815 ORS. personally appear or be represented by an 'authorized agent' A or by an advocate, then the court would not be justified in taking away that option or interpreting the statute differently - The functioning, conduct and behaviour of authorized agents can always be regulated by the Consumer Forums - When the legislature has permitted authorized agents to appear on B behalf of the complainant, then the courts can't compel the consumer to engage the services of an advocate -Advocates Act, 1961 - s.33. Rules for regulation of practice by agents, representatives, registered organizations and/or non- C advocates before consumer fora - Held: In order to ensure smooth, consistent, uniform and unvarying functioning of the National Commission, the State Commissions and the District Forums, direction issued to the National Commission to frame comprehensive rules regarding appearances of the D agents, representatives, registered organizations and/or non- advocates appearing before the National Commission, the State Commissions and the District Forums governing qualifications, conduct and ethical behaviour of agentslnon- advocateslrepresentatives, registered organizations and/or E agents appearing before the consumer forums. Advocates Appearance by non-advocate representative before authorities and forums - Permissibility - Held: Many statutes and Acts in India permit non-advocates F to represent the parties before the authorities and forums - In other jurisdictions also, non-advocates are permitted to appear before quasi-judicial fora or subordinate courts - In - most of these jurisdictions, specific rules have been framed for the regulation of qualifications, conduct and ethical G behaviour of the non-advocates appearing in these fora - In most jurisdictions, the statutes or court rules impose some form of restrictions on appearances of non-advocate representatives in quasi-judicial fora or subordinate courts - Restrictions on non-advocates agents vary significantly in H 816 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 13 (ADDL) S.C.R A terms of their specificity, but most forums have rules granting them some discretion in admitting or refusing the appearance of a non-advocate representative. In the instant appeals, the issue which arose for 8 consideration was whether authorized agents, who are not advocates, can file complaints and represent persons before the Consumer fora as a lawyer and whether this would not violate the Advocates Act, 1961. The appellants contended that ordinarily the right to C practise has been given only to advocates who are enrolled with the Bar Council of a State. Placing reliance on provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961, as also international law and conventions, the appellants contended that only advocates can act, plead and argue D before
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.