Non-advocates can appear before consumer forums: Apex court
August 31st, 2011 - 9:01 pm ICT by IANSNew Delhi, Aug 31 (IANS) The Supreme Court has held that a non-advocate could appear before the consumer disputes redressal forum if he/she is appearing on an individual case basis without charging a fee and also without any pre-existing relationship with the complainant.
A bench of Justice Dalveer Bhandari, Justice Dr. Mukundakam Sharma and Justice Anil R. Dave in their judgment Monday, but made available Wednesday, said that pre-existing relationship includes relatives, neighbours, business associates or personal friends.
The court said this in its detailed suggestion to the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) for framing rules to facilitate the appearance of representatives who, however, are not legal practitioners before consumer forums.
However, speaking for the bench, Justice Bhandari said that the commission may consider creating a process through which non-advocates may be accredited to practice as representatives before a (consumer) forum.
The court further said that accredited non-advocates “shall be allowed to appear before a forum on regular basis”.
The basic issue that was sought to be addressed by the larger bench was “whether a person under the purported cover of being an ‘agent’ (non-legal practitioner) could represent a large number of person before the consumer forum”.
The apex court’s suggestions to NCDRC came while dismissing the appeals challenging the Bombay High Court judgment of Sep 4, 2002, which held that the authorised agents can appear before the consumer fora constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as they have “trappings of a civil court” but “are not civil courts within the meaning of provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure”.
The high court judgment came after the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission stayed proceedings in all the cases where non-advocate representatives were appearing on behalf of the complainants before district consumer forums.
Holding that the high court judgment could not be said to be “erroneous and unsustainable in law”, the apex court directed the NCDRC to frame comprehensive rules within three months of its order.
“It is the bounden duty of the courts to discern legislative intention and interpret the statutes accordingly. In the instant case, act and rules have made specific provisions by which the agents have been permitted to plead and appear on behalf of the parties before the consumer forums. Therefore, to interpret it differently would be contrary to legislative intention,” the judgment said.
It further said that the legislature has given an option to the parties before the consumer forums to either personally appear or be represented by an “authorized agent” or by an advocate, then the court “would not be justified in taking away that option or interpreting the statute differently”.
The accreditation process, the court’s suggestion to NCDRC said, would involve written examination to test the knowledge of relevant laws and ability to make legal presentation, including the educational and professional background of the person seeking accreditation.
The presiding officer of the consumer forum would decide on the quantum of fee upon a specific request from the representatives appearing for a complainant.
The fixation of fee would be incumbent upon the extent and type of service being rendered by the representative, including the nature of the case and complexities involved and the level of skill and competence required for dealing with the case.
In the case where aggrieved party seeking monetary compensation, the quantum of fee would not be more than 20 percent of the damages.
The NCDRC will also create a code of conduct and frame rules empowering consumer forums to initiated disciplinary action against the non-advocates, agents, authorized organisations and representatives for violating code of conduct.
The disciplinary powers would include suspension or banning of non-advocates from appearing before the consumer forum and include fines.
- NRI doctors demands removal of 'tainted' medical council members - Nov 04, 2011
- Arrest warrant against Mukesh Ambani by Kerala consumer court - Dec 16, 2011
- Court relief for British Airways - Jun 23, 2010
- Man gets Rs.500,000 for courier firm's negligence - Jan 22, 2012
- Government disowns remarks on gays (Lead) - Mar 21, 2012
- K.V. Thomas calls for effective consumer dispute redressal machinery - Mar 14, 2011
- Guidelines on media would amount to judicial over-reach, SC told - May 04, 2012
- Advocates beyond ambit of consumer law: apex court - Apr 13, 2009
- Don't be party to curtailing press freedom: Shanti Bhushan (Lead) - Apr 10, 2012
- Plea on apex court lawyers dismissed (Lead) - Feb 13, 2012
- Judiciary must be responsive to emerging issues: President - Aug 06, 2011
- Ayodhya verdict scheduled for Sep 30 (Third Lead) - Sep 28, 2010
- Supreme Court to hear pleas against gay sex in April (Lead) - Feb 07, 2011
- Delhi to host consumer rights conference from March 14 - Mar 12, 2011
- Supreme Court stays 'strange' Babri Masjid verdict (Roundup) - May 09, 2011
Tags: apex court, authorised agents, bhandari, bombay high court, civil court, civil courts, code of civil procedure, complainant, consumer dispute, consumer forum, consumer forums, consumer protection act, consumer protection act 1986, court judgment, framing rules, legal practitioner, legal practitioners, national consumer disputes redressal commission, ncdrc, personal friends