# 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 814 C. VENKATACHALAM v. AJITKUMAR C. SHAH AND OTHERS

- **Citation:** [2011] 13 S.C.R. 814
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2011-08-29
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 868 of 2003
- **Bench:** Dalveer Bhandari Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, Anil R. Dave
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/13-addl-s-c-r-814-c-venkatachalam-v-ajitkumar-c-shah-and-others-27337
- **Pages:** 52

## Headnote

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 nonC
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 nonadvocates appearing before the National Commission, the
State Commissions and the District Forums governing
qualifications, conduct and ethical behaviour of agentslnonadvocateslrepresentatives, 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

## Text

_Characters 0–39,897 of 89,324. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39897 for what follows._

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 nonC
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 nonadvocates appearing before the National Commission, the
State Commissions and the District Forums governing
qualifications, conduct and ethical behaviour of agentslnonadvocateslrepresentatives, 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 the Consumer Forums and that the agents have
no legal training to handle complicated legal matters
pertaining to consumers and hence they cannot be
permitted to practise law before the Consumer Forums.
E
The High Court vide the impugned judgment held
that a party before the District Consumer Forum/State
Commission cannot be compelled to engage services of
an advocate and also that the right of audience inheres
in favour of authorized agents of the parties in the
proceedings before the District Consumer Forum and the
F State Commission and such right is not inconsistent or
in conflict with the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961.
G
H
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD:
Historical perspective of the consumer movement
1.1. The consumer movement had primarily started
in the West. The organized English consumer movement
C. VENKATACHALAM v. AJITKUMAR C. SHAH AND 817
ORS.
started after the Second World War. The Labour Party for
A
the first time gave slogan of "battle for the consumers"
in Parliament. In the decade of 1960, number of
legislations were introduced in Britain for the protection
of the consumers. The consumer movement in the
United States of America developed in the beginning of B
the 19th century. Subsequently, the General Assembly of
the United Nations adopted a set of general guidelines
for consumer protection and toe Secretary General of the
United Nations was authorized to persuade member
countries to adopt these guidelines through policy c
changes or law. These guidelines constitute a
comprehensive policy framework outlining what
governments need to do to promote consumer protection
in following seven areas: Physical safety; Protection and
Promotion of the consumer economic interest; 0
Standards for the safety and quality of consumer goods
and services; Distribution facilities .for consumer goods
and services; Measures enabling consumers to obtain
redress; Measures relating to specific areas (food, water
and pharmaceuticals); and Consumer education and
information programme. Though not legally binding, the
guidelines provide an internationally recognized set of
basic objectives particularly for governments of
developing and newly independent countries for
structuring and strengthening their consumer protection
policies and legislations. These guidelines were adopted
recognizing that consumers often face imbalances in
economic terms, educational levels and bargaining power
and bearing in mind that consumers should have the
right of access to non hazardous products as well as the
importance of promoting just, equitable and sustainable
G
economic and social development. [Paras 23, 27, 28, 33,
E
F
34] (836-A; 837-A-C; 839-E-H; 840-A-D]
H
818
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 13 (ADDL.) SC R
A Indian perspective
1.2. It was in this background that the Indian
Parliament had enacted the Consumer Protection Act,
1986. The declared objective of the statute was "to
8 provide for better protection of the interests of
consumers." It seeks to provide a speedy and
inexpensive remedy to the consumer. The· Consumer
Protection Act, 1986 is one of the benevolent social
legislations intended to protect the large body of
C consumers from exploitation. The Act has come as a
panacea for consumers all over the country and is
considered as one of the most important legislations
enacted for the benefit of the consumers. The Consumer
Protection Act, 1986 provides inexpensive and prompt
remedy. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is dedicated,
D as its preamble shows, to provide for effective protection
of the rights of the consumers. According to the
Statement of Objects and Reasons, it seeks to provide
speedy and simple redressal to consumer disputes. The
object of the Act is to render simple, inexpensive and
E speedy remedy to the consumers with complaints against
defective goods and deficient services and for that a
quasi-judicial machinery has been sought to be set up at
the District, State and Central levels. The Consumer
Protection Act has come to meet the long-felt necessity
F of protecting common man from wrongs for which the
remedy under the ordinary law for various reasons has
become illusory. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was
amended in the years 1991, 1993 and in 2002 to make it
more effective and purposeful. To effectuate this
G objective, a provision has been made in Chapter II of the
Act for the constitution of 'the Central Consumer
Protection Council' and 'the State Consumer Protection
Councils." The purpose as indicated in section 6 is to
"promote and protect the rights of consumers" against
H the "marketing of goods and services which are
C. VENKATACHALAM v. AJITKUMAR C. SHAH AND 819
ORS.
hazardous to life and property; the right to be informed
A
about the quality, quantity, potency, purity, standard and
price of goods or services, as the case may be, so as to
protect the consumer against unfair trade ~ractices; the
right to be assured, wherever possible, access to a
variety of goods and services at competitive prices; the
B
right to be heard and to be assured that consumer's
interests will receive due consideration at appropriate
Forums; the right to seek redressal against unfair trade
practices or restrictive trade practices or unscrupulous
exploitation of consumers and the right to consumer c
education." A perusal of Chapter II clearly shows that. the
statute seeks to protect the 'consumer' of goods and
services in every possible way. It aims at providing a
speedy and inexpensive remedy. Any interpretation of
the provisions of the 1986 Act and the rules framed 0
thereunder must promote this objective of the enactment.
In furtherance of the declared objective of protecting the
consumer against exploitation as well as providing an
inexpensive and speedy remedy, the competent authority
has framed Rules which enable the party to appear either
personally or through an 'agent'. [Paras 35 to 41] [840-EE
H; 841-A-H; 842-A-B]
Harishankar Rastogi v. Girdhari Sharma and Another
(1978) 2 SCC 165: 1978 (3) SCR 493 - referred to.
Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company 1893 (1) Q.B.
256; Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932) A.C. 562 and Donald
C. MacPherson v. Buick Motor Company 217 N.Y. 382, 111
N.E. 1050 - referred to.
F
O.N. Mohindroo v. The Bar Council of Delhi and Others
G
1968 (2) SCR 709 - cited.
Article on "Consumer Movement" by Paul S. Boyer
[Oxford Companion to United States History, 2001] -
referred to.
H
· 820
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A Legislative intention
2.1. The agents have been permitted to appear before
the Consumer Forums. The appearance of authorized
agents is not inconsistent with section 33 of the
B Advocates Act, 1961. The legislature in its wisdom has
granted 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
C reason is that a large number of litigants may not be able
to afford heavy professional fees of trained advocates,
therefore, authorized agents have been permitted. It is the
bounden duty and obligation of the Court to carefully
discern the legislative intention and articulate the same.
D In the instant case one is not really called upon to discern
legislative intention because there is specific rule defining
the agents and the provisions of permitting them to
appear before the Consumer For.::ns. The agents have
been permitted to appear to accomplish the main object
E of the act of disposal of consumers' complaints
expeditiously with no costs or small costs. [Paras 79 to
82] [854-B-F]
2.2. The High Court was fully justified in observing
F that the authorised agents do not practise law when they
are permitted to appear before the District Forums and
the State Commissions. In the impugned judgment the
High Court aptly observed that many statutes, such as,
Sales Tax, Income Tax and Competition Act also permit
non-advocates to represent the parties before the
G authorities and those non-advocates cannot be said to
practise law. On the same analogy those non-advocates
who appear before Consumer fora also cannot be said
to practise law. [Paras 83, 84] [854-G-H; 855-A-B]
H
C. VENKATACHALAM v. AJITKUMAR C. SHAH AND 821
ORS.
2.3. The legislature has given an option to the parties
A
before the Consumer Forums to either personally appear
o· be represented l:iy an 'authorized agent' or by an
advocate, then the court would not be justified in taking
away that option or interpreting the statute differently.
[Para 85] [855-8-C]
B
2"4. 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 behalf of the C
complainant, then the courts can't compel the consumer
to engage the services of an advocate. [Paras 86, 87] [855D-E]
R.M.D. Chamarbaugwalla and Another v. Union of India
ci11d Another AIR 1957 SC 628; Anandji Haridas & Company
D
Private Limiter! ' Engineenng Mazdoor Sangh and Another
(1975) 3 SCC 862: 1975 (3) SCR 542; Kartar Singh v. State
of Punjab (1994) 3 SCC 569: 1994 (2) SCR 375; District
Mining Officer and Others v. Tata Iron and Steel Company
and Another (2001) 7 SCC 358: 2001 (1) Suppl. SCR 147;
E
Bhatia International v. Bulk Trading S. A and Another (2002)
4 SCC 105: 2002 (2) SCR 411; Lucknow Development
Authority v. MK. Gupta (1994) 1 SCC 243: 1993 (3) Suppl.
SCR 615; Lax mi Engineering Works v. P. S. G. Industrial
Institute (1995) 3 SCC 583: 1995 (3) SCR 174; Indian
F
Photographic Company Limited v. H.O. Shourie (1999) 6
SCC 428: 1999 (1) Suppl. SCR 9; Or. J.J. Merchant and
Others v. Shrinath Chaturvedi (2002) 6 SCC 635: 2002 (1)
Suppl. ·scR 469; Common Cause, A Registered Society v.
Union of India and others (1997) 10 SCC 729: 1993 (1) SCR
G
1 O - referred to.
Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England,
Vol. I, 2001; Edited by Wayne Morrison.
3. The National Commission being aware of a
H
822
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 13 (ADDL.) S.C R
A possibility of misuse of the right by an agent had framed
Regulation 30-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986,
wherein certain restrictions on the right of audience and
also certain precautions to rule out any misuse of liberty
granted has been taken by way of framing Regulation 16.
B Clauses 6 and 7 of Regulation 16 were enacted for
providing proper guidelines and safeguards for
regulating appearance and audience of the agents. The
aforesaid regulation is a reasonable restriction on the
right to appear by an agent. Such reasonable restrictions
c as provided for are to be strictly adhered to and complied
with by the Consumer Forum hearing cases under the
Consumer Protection Act so as to rule out any misuse
of the privilege granted. In terms of the said ·regulation
and other regulations as provided and framed by the
0 National Commissi~ and as approved by the Parliament
of India, the Consumer Forum has the right to prevent an
authorized agent to appear in case it is found and
believed that he is using the said right as a profession.
The Consumer Forums being empowered with such
Regulations would be in a position to judge whether the
E agent appearing before it is in any manner exercising
such privileges granted for any ulterior purpose. [Paras
88, 89] [855-F; 856-C-E]
4. Many statutes and Acts in India permit nonF advocates 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 jurisdic.tions,
specific rules have been framed for the regulation of
G qualifications, conduct and ethical behaviour of the nonadvocates 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
H courts. Restrictions on non-advocates agents vary
C. VENKATACHALAM v. AJITKUMAR C. SHAH AND 823
ORS.
significantly in terms of their specificity, but most forums
A
have rules granting them some discretion in admitting or
refusing the appearance of a non-advocate
representative. [Paras 90, 91 and 92] [856-F-H; 857-A-D]
Directions
5.1. In order to ensure smooth, consistent, uniform
and unvarying functioning of the National Commission,
B
the State Commissions and the District Forums, it is
deemed appropriate to direct the National Commission to
frame comprehensive rules regarding appearances of the
C
agents, representatives, registered organizations and/or
non-advocates
appearing
before
the
National
Commission, the State Commissions and the District
Forums governing their qualifications, conduct and
ethical
behaviour
of
agents/non-advocates
D
representatives, registered organizations and/or agents
appearing before the consumer forums. [Para 109] [862B-C]
The National Commission may consider following
suggestions while framing rules
5.2. The Commission may consider non-advocates
appearing without accreditation - A party may appoint a
non-advocate as its representative provided that the
representative -
(1)
is appearing on an individual case basis
E
F
(2)
has a pre-existing relationship with the
complainant (e.g., as a relative, neighbour,
G
business associate or personal friend)
(3)
is not receiving any form of direct or indirect
remuneration for appearing before the Forum
and files a written declaration to that effect
H
824
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A
(4)
demonstrates to the presiding officer of the
B
c
D
E
F
Forum that he or she is competent to represent
the party.
Accreditation Process
(a)
The National Commission may consider
creating a process through which nonadvocates may be accredited to practice as
representatives before a Forum.
(b)
Non-advocates who are accredited through
this process shall be allowed to appear before
a Forum on a regular basis
(c)
The accreditation process may consist of -
(1)
an written examination that tests an
applicant's knowledge of relevant law
and ability to make legal presentations
and arguments
(2)
an inspection of the applicant's
educational and professional
background
(3)
an inspection of the applicant's criminal
record
(d)
the National Commission may prescribe
additional requirements for accreditation at its
discretion provided that the additional
requirements are not arbitrary and do not
G
violate existing law or the Constitution ..
Fees
H
(a)
A representative who wishes to receive a fee
must file a written request before the Forum
C. VENKATACHALAM v. AJITKUMAR C. SHAH AND 825
ORS.
(b)
The presiding officer will decide the amount of A
the fee, if any, a representative may charge or
receive
(c)
When evaluating a representative's request for
a fee, the presiding officer may consider the
B
following factors :
(1)
the extent and type of services the
representative performed
(2)
the complexity of the case
(3)
the level of skill and competence
required of the representative in giving
the services
c
(4)
the amount of time the representative
D
spent on the case; and
(5)
the ability of the party to pay the fee
(d)
If a party is seeking monetary damages, its
E
representative may not seek more a fee of
more than 20% of the damages
Code of Conduct for representatives
- The National Commission to create a code of conduct
F
which would apply to non-advocates, registered
organizations and agents appearing before a Forum.
Disciplinary Powers of a Forum
(a)
The presiding officer of a Forum may be given
G
specific power to discipline non-advocates,
agents, authorized organizations and
representatives for violating the code of
conduct or other behaviour that is unfitting in
a Forum
H
826
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 13 (ADDL) S.C.R.
A
(a)
In exercising its disciplinary authority, the
8
c
presiding officer may -
'
(1)
revoke a representative•'s privilege to
appear before the instant case
(2)
suspend a representative's privilege to
appear before the Forum
(3)
ban a representative from appearing
before the forum
(4)
impose a monetary fine on the
representative [Para 11 O] [862-0-H; 863A-H; 864-A-H]
5.3. The National Commission is directed to frame
D comprehensive Rules as expeditiously as possible, in
any event, within three m'lnths from the date of
communication of this order. The copy of this judgment
be sent to the National Commission. [Para 111] [865-A]
E
Case Law Reference:
1968 (2) SCR 709
cited
Para 20
1978 (3) SCR 493
referred to
Para 21, 52
1893 (1) Q.B. 256
referred to
Para 23
F
(1932) A.C. 562
referred to
Para 25
217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E. 1050
referred to
Para 28
AIR 1957 SC 628
referred to
Para 58
G
1975 (3) SCR 542
referred to
Para 59
1994 (2) SCR 375.
referred to
Para 60
2001 (1) Suppl. SCR 147
referred to
Para 61
H
2002 (2) SCR 411
referred to
Para 62
C. VENKATACHALAM v. AJITKUMAR C. SHAH AND 827
ORS.
1993 (3) Suppl. SCR 615
referred to
Para 74
1995 (3) SCR 174
referred to
Para 75
1999 (1) Suppl. SCR 9
referred to
Para 76
2002 (1) Suppl. SCR 469
referred to
Para 77
1993 (1) SCR 10
referred to
Para 78
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 868
of 2003.
From the Judgment & Ord.er dated 04.09.2002 of the High
Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 1425 of
2002.
WITH
C.A. Nos. 869-870 of 2003.
J.L. Gupta, Santosh Paul, Arvind Gupta, K.K Bhat, Meera
Mathew (for M.J. Paul), Sanjeev Sachdeva, Pree Pal Singh,
Vibhu Verma for the Appellant.
Bharat Sangal, Vernica Tomar, Alka Singh for the
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
A
B
c
D
E
DALVEER BHANDARI, J. 1. These appeals emanate
F
from the judgment dated 4.9.2002 delivered by the Division
Bench of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition Nos. 1147
and 1425 of 2002. We propose to dispose of these appeals
by a common judgment because same questions of law are
involved in these appeals.
G
BRIEF FACTS:
2. A complaint bearing no.428 of 2000 of alleged
deficiency in service was filed before the South Mumbai District
H
828
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 13 (ADDL) S.C.R
A Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mumbai (for short,
Consumer Forum) against the two tour operators. During the
pendency of the complaint, applications were filed by the
opposite parties contending that the authorized agent should
not be granted permission to appear on behalf of the
B complainants as he was not enrolled as an Advocate The
Consumer Forum considered the applications and held that the
authorized agent had no right to act and plead before the
Consumer Forum as he was not enrolled as an advocate.
3. In complaint bearing no.167 of 1997 filed before the
C Consumer Forum, the majority expressed the view U1at the
authorized agents have a right \o file, act, appear, argue the
complaint to its logical conclusion before the Consumer
Agencies. The issue was taken to the State Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, State Commission)
D which stayed the hearing of the matters in which authorized
agents were appearing and ref•Jsed to grant stay where
authorized agents were injuncted from appearing before the
Consumer Forum. As a result, the proceedings in a large
number of cases where the authorized agents were appearing
E had come to standstill.
4. The interim order passed by the State Commission was
challenged in two writ petitions before the Bombay High Court
The petitions were allowed by the Division Bench. The High
F Court held that the Consumer Fora constituted under the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 have "trappings of a civil court"
but "are not civil courts within the meaning of the provisions of
the Code of Civil Procedure."
5. The High Court in the impugned judgment held that a
G party before the District Consumer Forum/State Commission
cannot be compelled to engage services of an advocate.
6. The High Court further held that the Act of 1986 is a
special piece of legislation for the better protection of the
H interests of consumers. The Act has been enacted to give
C. VENKATACHALAM v. AJITKUMAR C. SHAH AND 829
ORS. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
succour and relief to the affected or aggrieved consumers
A
quickly with nil or small expense. The Consumer Forum created
under the Act of 1986 is uninhibited by the requirement of court
fee or the formal procedures of court - civil or criminal. .... any
recognized consumers Association can espouse his
cause ...... Even the Central Government or State Governments
B
can act on his/their behalf. .. restrictive meaning shall not be
consistent with the objectives of the Act of 1986 ... The right to
appear, therefore, includes right to address the Court,
examining, cross-examining witnesses, oral submissions etc ..
7. The Division Bench also held that the right of audience
C
inheres in favour of authorized agents of the parties in the
proceedings before the District Consumer Forum and the State
Commission and such right is not inconsistent or in conflict with
the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961.
D
8. The Division Bench also observed that the right of an
advocate to practise is not an absolute right but is subject to
other provisions of the Act. According to the Division Bench,
permitting the authorized agents to represent parties to the
proceedings before the District Forum/State Commission
E
cannot be said to practise law.
9. The Division Bench also held that there are various
statutes like Income Tax Act, Sales Tax Act and the Monopolies
and Restrictive Trade Practices Act which permit non-advocates
to represent the parties before the authorities under those Acts
and those non-advocates appearing before those Forums for
the parties cannot be said to practise law. The Rules of 2000
framed under Act of 1986 permit authorized agents to appear
F
for the parties and such appearance of ·authorized agents
cannot be said to be inconsistent with section 33 of Advocates
G
Act.
10. The Division Bench also dealt with the disciplinary
aspect of the matter and held that if authorized agent appearing
for the party to the proceedings misbehaves or exhibits violent
H
830
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R
A behaviour or does not maintain the decency and decorum of
the District Forum or State Commission or interferes with the
smooth progress of the case then it is always open to such
District Forum or State Commission to pass an appropriate
order refusing such authorized agent the audience in a given
B case.
11. These appeals have been preferred before this court
against the impugned judgment.
12. A two-judge Bench of this Court on 21.2.2007 refllrred
C these matters to a larger Bench in view of the importance of
the matter. The order dated 21.2.2007 reads as under:
D
E
F
G
H
"The basic issue involved in these appeals is 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. According to the
appellant Rule relating to agents cannot be used to by
passing stipulations under the provisions of the Advocates
Act, 1961 (in short the 'Advocates Act'), more particularly
under Sections 29, 31 and 32. Rule 2(b) of the Consumer
Protection Rules, 1987 (in short the 'The Rules') defines
an 'agent' as under:
"agent means a person duly authorized by a
party to present any complaint, appeal or
reply on its behalf before the National
Commission."
Similarly, Rule. 14(1) and 14(3) also deal with the acts
which an agent can undertake.
Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that
in Civil Appeal No. 2531 of 2006 (R.D. Nagpal Vs. Vijay
Dutt & Anr.) this Court has accepted the stand that even a
Doctor is authorised by a party can cross examine the
complainant.
C. VENKATACHALAM v. AJITKUMAR C. SHAH AND 831
ORS. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
So far as individual cases are concerned, it may not
A
present difficulty. But the question is whether somebody
who is not a lega! practitioner, can represent large number
of parties before their forums thereby frustrating objects
embodied in the Advocates Act.
B
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that
a large number of persons who are otherwise not entitled
to appear before the forums are doing so under the garb
of being agents.
As the matter is of great importance, we refer the same
C
to a larger Bench.
Papers may be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice
of India so that necessary orders can be passed for
placing these matters oefore the appropriate Bench."
D
13. Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India has referred these
appeals before a three judge Bench.
14. It is imperative to properly comprehend the objects and
reasons of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in order to deal
;
with the controversy involved in the case.
"Statement of Objects and Reasons - The Consumer
Protection Bill, 1986 seeks to provide for better protection
of the interests of consumers and for the purpose, to make
provisions for the establishment of Consumer Councils and
other authorities for the settlement of consumer disputes
and for matters connected therewith.
2. It seeks, inter alia, to promote and protect the rights of
consumers such as-
(a)
the right to be protected against marketing of goods
which are hazardous to life and property;
(b)
the right to be informed about the quality, quantity,
E
F
G
H
832
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A
potency, purity, standard and price of goods to
protect the consumer against unfair trade practices;
(c)
the right to be assured, wherever possible, access
to an array of goods at competitive prices;
B
(d)
the right to be heard and to be assured that
consumer interests will receive due consideration
at appropriate forums;
(e)
the right to seek redressal against unfair trade
c
practices or unscrupulous exploitation of
consumers; and
D
E
F
(f)
right to consumer education.
3. These objects are sought to be promoted and protected
by the Consumer Protection Council to be established at
the Central and State level.
4. To provide speedy and simple redressal to consumer
disputes, a quasi-judicial machinery is sought to be setup at the district, State and Central levels. These quasijudicial bodies will observe the principles of natural justice
and have been empowered to give relief of a specific
nature and to award, wherever appropriate, compensation
to consumers. Penalties for non-compliance of the orders
given by the quasi-judicial bodies have also been
provided."
15. Mr. Santosh Paul, learned counsel appearing for the'
appellants argued these appeals and also submitted the written
submissions. He submitted that ordinarily right to practise has
G been given only to advocates who are enrolled with the Bar
Council of a State. Section 29 of the Advocates Act, 1961
recognised advocates as class of persons entitled to practise
the profession of law. Section 29 reads as under:
H
"29. Advocates to be the only recognized class of
C. VENKATACHALAM v. AJITKUMAR C. SHAH AND 833
ORS. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
persons entitled to practice law - Subject to the
A
provisions of this Act and any rules made thereunder, there
shall, as from the appointed day, be only one class of
persons entitled to practise the profession of law, namely,
advocates."
B
16. Section 32 of the Advocates Act, 1961 deals with the
power of court to permit appearances in particular cases where
court can permit any person not enrolled as an advocate.
Section 32 reads as under:
..
"Power of Court to permit appearances in particular C
cases - Notwithstanding anything contained in this
Chapter, any court, authority, or person may permit any
person, not enrolled as an advocate under this Act, to
appear before it or him in any particular case."
17. Section 33 of the Advocates Act, 1961 says that no
person shall, on or after the appointed day, be entitled to
practise in any court or before any authority unless he is enrolled
as an advocate. Section 33 reads as under:
"Advocates alone entitled to practise - Except as
otherwise provided in this Act or in any other law for the
time being in force, no person shall, on or after the
appointed day, be entitled to practise in any court or before
any authority or person unless he is enrolled as an advocate
under this Act."
·
18. According to Mr. Paul, analysis of these provisions lead
to clear conclusion that only advocates can act, plead and argue
before the Consumer Forums.
D
E
F
G
19. He placed reliance on the following judgments of this
court:-
20. In O.N. Mohindroo v. The Bar Council of Delhi and
Others 1968 (2) SCR 709, the court held as under:-
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
834
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
'The object of the Act is thus to constitute one common
Bar for the whole country and to provide machinery for its
regulated functioning. Since the Act sets up one Bar,
autonomous in its character, the Bar Councils set up
thereunder have been entrusted with the power to regulate
the working of the profession and to prescribe rules of
professional conduct and etiquette, and the power to
punish those who commit breach of such rules. The power
of punishment is entrusted to the disciplinary committees
ensuring a trial of an advocate by his peers. Sections 35,'
36 and 37 lay down the procedure for trying complaints,
punishment and an appeal to the Bar Council of India from
the orders passed by the State Bar Councils. As an
additional remedy section 38 provides a further appeal to
the Supreme Court. Though the Act relates to the legal
practitioners, in its pith and substance it is an enactment
which concerns itself with the qualifications, enrollment,
right to practise and discipline of the advocates. As
provided by the Act once a person is enrolled by any one
of the State Bar Councils, he becomes entitled to practise
in all courts including the Supreme Court. As aforesaid, the
Act creates one common Bar, all its members being of
one class, namely, advocates. Since all those who have
been enrolled ·have a right to practise in the Supreme Court
and the High Courts, the Act is a piece of legislation which
deals with persons entitled to practise before the Supreme
Court and the High Courts. Therefore the Act must be held
to fall within entries 77 and 78 of List I. As the power of
legislation relating to those entitled to practise in the
Supreme Court and the High Courts is carved out from the
general power to legislate in relation to legal and other
professions in entry 26 of List 111, it is an error to say, as
the High Court did, that the Act is a composite legislation
partly falling under entries 77 and 78 of List I and partly
under entry 26 of List Ill."
C. VENKATACHALAM v. AJITKUMAR C. SHAH AND 835
ORS. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
21. In Harishankar Rastogi v. Girdhari Sharma and
A
Another (1978) 2 SCC 165, the court held as under:-
"Advocates are entitled as of right to practise in this Court
(Section 30(i) of the Advocates Act, 1961 ). But, this
privilege cannot be claimed as of right by any one else.
8
While it is true that Article 19 of the Constitution guarantees
the freedom to practise any profession, it is open to the
State to make a law imposing, in the interest of the general
public, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right
The Advocates Act, by Section 29, provides for such a
reasonable restriction, namely, that the only class of · C
persons entitled to practise the profession of law shall be
advocates. Even so, is it not open to a party who is unable
for some reason or other to present his case adequately
to seek the help of another person in this behalf? To
negative such a plea may be to deny justice altogether in
D
certain cases, especially in a land of illiteracy and
indigence and judicial processes of a sophisticated
nature. That is precisely why legislative policy has taken
care to provide for such contingencies. Sections 302, 303
and 304 of the Criminal Procedure Code are indicative of E
the policy of the legislature. I do not think that in this Court
we should totally shut out representation by any person
other than the party himself in situations where an advocate
is not appearing for the party .... "
22. Mr. Paul appearing for the appellants also gave
reference to international law and conventions to strengthen his
submissions that only advocates enrolled with the respective
Bar Councils alone can practise in the Consumer Forums and
F
the agents cannot appear. He submitted that practice under the
G
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 requires extensive legal skills
which only a trained legal practitioner possesses and he alone
can discharge those functions. He submitted that the agents
have no legal training to handle complicated legal matters
pertaining to consumers and hence the agents cannot be
permitted to practise law before the Consumer Forums.
H
836
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 13 (ADDL) S.C.R.
A Historical perspective of the consumer movement
23. The consumer movement had primarily started in the
West. We can trace history of the consumer movement from
the judgment of the leading case Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball
8 Company 1893 (1) Q.B. 256. In this case first time
Manufacturers' liability for minimum quality standard for product
was established.
24. For the first time in 1856 a select committee
recommended that a cheap and easy remedy, by a summary
C charge before a magistrate, should be afforded to consumers
who received adulterated or falsely described food. This
suggestion was taken up in the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887.
Section 17 of the Act provides as follows :
0
"That a person applying a trade description to a product
was deemed to warrant that it was true, so that a false
trade description constituted breach of both criminal and
civil law."
25. In a leading English case Donoghue v. Stevenson
E (1932) A.C. 562, where the consumer claimed to have suffered
injury as well as result of drinking from a bottle of ginger-beer
containing a decomposed snail. Over a strong dissent the
majority held that the manufacturer would be liable. The case
did not herald strict liability but it facilitated more claims than
F were provided under the nineteenth century approach. Lord
Atkin enunciated the manufacturer's duty of care in the following
words:
G
H
" .......... the preparation or putting up of the products will
result in an injury to the consumer's life or property, owes
a duty to the consumer to take that reasonable CC!re."
26. This theory of strict liability already exists under the
Consumer Protection Act, 1961.
C. VENKATACHALAM v. AJITKUMAR C. SHAH AND 837
ORS. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
27. The organized English consumer movement started
A
after the Second World War. The Labour Party for the first time
gave slogan of "battle for the consumers" in Parliament. In the
decade of 1960, number of legislations were introduced in
Britain for lhP protection of the consumers. The Consumer
Safety Act, 1978 was enacted.
B
United States of America
28. The consumer movement in the United States of
America developed in the beginning of the 19th century when
in Donald C. MacPherson v. Buick Motor Company 217 N.Y.
C
382, 111 N.E. 1050 the New York Court of Appeal observed
that a car manufacturer had to compensate a consumer who
had been injured when one of the car wheels collapsed because
of defect. The court held that the manufacturer had been
negligent because the defect could h:;ive been discovered by
D
reasonable inspection. In 1972, the Consumer Product Safety
Act was enacted.
29. Paul S.