2011 (8) TMI 1073 - SC - Law of Competition

Non-lawyers can now represent parties in Consumer Forums, enhancing access to affordable justice.

C. Venkatachalam Versus Ajitkumar C. Shah and others With

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision allowing non-advocates to represent parties in Consumer Forums under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, ... Whether a party before the District Consumer Forum/State Commission cannot be compelled to engage services of an advocate? Whether a person under the purported cover of being an “agent” can represent large number of persons before the forums created under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (In short the ‘Act’) and the Rules made thereunder? Whether somebody who is not a legal practitioner, can represent large number of parties before their forums thereby frustrating objects embodied in the Advocates Act? Issues Involved:1. Whether non-advocates can represent parties before Consumer Forums under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.2. Whether such representation by non-advocates violates the Advocates Act, 1961.3. The legislative intent behind allowing non-advocates to appear in Consumer Forums.4. The disciplinary regulations for non-advocate representatives in Consumer Forums.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Representation by Non-Advocates in Consumer Forums:The primary issue in these appeals was whether non-advocates could represent parties before Consumer Forums under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The High Court held that Consumer Forums are not civil courts within the meaning of the Code of Civil Procedure and thus, parties cannot be compelled to engage advocates. It was emphasized that the Act aims to provide quick and inexpensive relief to consumers, and allowing authorized agents to represent parties aligns with this objective. The authorized agents can file, act, appear, and argue complaints before Consumer Forums, as permitted by the Rules of 2000 framed under the Act.2. Consistency with the Advocates Act, 1961:The High Court found that the right of audience for authorized agents in Consumer Forums is not inconsistent with the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961. Section 32 of the Advocates Act allows courts to permit non-advocates to appear in particular cases. The judgment cited various statutes like the Income Tax Act and the Sales Tax Act, which also permit non-advocates to represent parties before respective authorities, indicating that such representation does not constitute practicing law.3. Legislative Intent:The judgment delved into the legislative intent behind the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which was to provide a simple, speedy, and inexpensive remedy for consumer disputes. The Act allows parties to be represented by authorized agents to avoid the complexities and costs associated with legal representation. The court emphasized that interpreting the Act to restrict representation to only advocates would be contrary to the legislative intent and would undermine the objective of providing accessible justice to consumers.4. Disciplinary Regulations for Non-Advocate Representatives:The High Court acknowledged the potential for misuse by non-advocates and highlighted the regulations framed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to guard against such misuse. Regulation 16 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005, provides that authorized agents should not use the right to appear as a profession and can be debarred for misconduct. The court directed the National Commission to frame comprehensive rules governing the qualifications, conduct, and ethical behavior of non-advocates appearing before Consumer Forums.Conclusion:The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment, affirming that non-advocates could represent parties in Consumer Forums under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The court emphasized the legislative intent to provide accessible and inexpensive justice to consumers and found no conflict with the Advocates Act, 1961. The court also directed the National Commission to frame comprehensive rules to regulate the conduct of non-advocate representatives. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, and the parties were directed to bear their own costs.