Taken up through video conferencing. 1. This revision petition has been filed under Section 58 (1)(b) of the Act 2019 in challenge to the Order dated 02.02.2021 of the State Commission in revision petition no. 44 of 2020 arising out of the Order dated 07.11.2020 of the District Commission in complaint no. 517 of 2020. 2. We have heard the learned counsel and perused the record. 3. The root of the matter is that the complainants (Mr. Abhishek Gupta and Mrs. Tamanna Dugar) were conducting their complaint through an authorised agent (Mr. Kartikeya Khanna) against the opposite party (M/s Havells India Pvt. Ltd.). They had given an authorisation on plain paper in favour of the said Mr. Kartikeya Khanna. In addition they had also given a special power of attorney in his favour. The District Commission held the special power of attorney to be flawed, observing that “But in the present case on hand neither stamp duty is paid on the special power of attorney of the Complainants nor notary stamp is affixed. Therefore, on the basis of such power of attorney Karthekeya Kanna has no power to represent the complaint on the basis of unstamped power of attorney. Therefore objection of Opposite Party with regards to authority of Karthikeya Kanna to represent of Complainant on the basis of unstamped power for attorney is accepted.” It accordingly sustained the objection of the opposite party that Mr. Kartikeya Khanna did not have authority to represent the complainants. In revision the State Commission vide its Order dated 02.02.2021 concurred with the District Commission, observing that “Hence, the order passed by the District Commission has no any lacuna.” 4. The learned counsel for the two sides join common ground on certain aspects of the matter and make similar submissions, that Rule 2(1)(c) of The Consumer Protection (Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions) Rules, 2020 defines ‘authorised agent’, that Regulation 2(b) of The Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 defines ‘agent’, that in the normal course and wont of their functioning the consumer protection fora do accept authorisation in respect of an agent on plain paper in which the intention of the complainant to appoint a particular individual as his agent is clearly and unambiguously conveyed, and that Regulation 16(2) of The Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020, which requires a special power of attorney executed on non-judicial paper or on plain paper attested by a gazetted officer or a notary public, is in relation to voluntary consumer organizations and not in relation to individual complainants. The submission of learned counsel for the complainants (the petitioner herein) is that in the instant case authorisation on plain paper was provided by the complainants, but additionally the complainants also provided a special power of attorney in favour of their agent. The special power of attorney was critiqued by the two fora below, even though authorisation on plain paper, which explicitly and unambiguously conveyed the intention of the complainants to have Mr. Kartikeya Khanna as their agent, was sufficient, and there was hardly any need to enter into the evaluation of special power of attorney which was just filed in addition. The learned counsel submits that, as such, with the authorisation on plain paper being sufficient in itself to authorise Mr. Kartikeya Khanna to represent the complainants, the special power of attorney was an accessory document and there was no need to examine its validity under the provisions of The Registration Act, 1908 or The Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The special power of attorney ought to have been treated as superfluous and unnecessary and the authorisation on plain paper ought to have been taken to be sufficient for the purpose of accepting the authority of Mr. Kartikeya Khanna to conduct the case on behalf of the complainants. And the District Commission ought to have proceeded to decide the case on merit. The learned counsel also informs that before the District Commission the pleadings are complete and the evidence has been filed. The submission is that the case is at its final stage and it should be carried to its logical conclusion by deciding the same on merit. Learned counsel for the opposite party (the respondent herein) fairly agrees that authorisation on plain paper which explicitly and unambiguously conveys the intention of a complainant to have a particular individual as his agent is sufficient in itself, except when the complainant is a voluntary consumer organization where a special power of attorney is necessary which is not the case here. 5. Learned counsel for the opposite party however submits that Mr. Kartikeya Khanna has made it into a business to conduct cases before consumer protection fora. In this respect he draws attention to Regulation 16(6), (7) & (8) of The Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020. The same are reproduced below: “16 (6) A Consumer Commission has to guard itself from touts and busybodies in the garb of power of attorney holders or unauthorized agents in the proceedings before it. (7) While a Consumer Commission may permit an authorised agent to appear before it, but authorised agent shall not be one who has used this as a profession: Provided that this sub-regulation shall not apply in case of advocates. (8) An authorised agent may be debarred from appearing before a Consumer Commission if he is found guilty of misconduct or any other malpractice at any time.” The submission is that even though authorisation on plain paper is sufficient for the purpose of authorising an agent, in this particular case Mr. Kartikeya Khanna, who has made this into a profession, is barred from acting as an agent in the light of Regulation 16(6), (7) & (8). Learned counsel for the complainants submits in rebuttal that Mr. Kartikeya Khanna is an engineer by profession and is a personal friend of the complainants. He also submits that Regulation 16(6), (7) & (8) are in no way applicable on Mr. Kartikeya Khanna and he can not be tainted on that count. He further submits that this type of objection is being taken up for the first time here, during the course of arguments in revisional proceedings before this Commission, but the allegation is not at all substantiated by any material on record. 6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions made at the bar and have perused the record in the light of the same. We note that Rule 2(1)(c) of the Rules 2020 defines “authorised agent” (“authorised agent” means a person duly authorised by a party to present any complaint, appeal or reply on behalf of such party before the National Commission, the State Commission, or the District Commission, as the case may be); Regulation 2(b) of the Regulations 2020 defines “agent” (“agent” means a person duly authorised by a party to present any complaint, appeal, revision or to file written version or to file any written submissions and address or plead, as the case may be, for and on behalf of such a party before the Consumer Commission); Regulation 16(2) of the Regulations 2020 deals with authorisation in respect of “voluntary consumer organization” (An authorisation of a Voluntary Consumer Organization may be by way of special power of attorney executed on a non-judicial paper or even on plain paper duly attested by a Gazetted Officer or a Notary Public); and Regulation 16(3) enables the power of attorney holder of a voluntary consumer organization to engage a counsel (The Power of Attorney holder shall be entitled to engage a counsel, if authorised to do so). It is clear that authorisation of a voluntary consumer organization has to be by way of special power of attorney executed on non-judicial paper or on plain paper attested by a gazette officer or a notary public, and such power of attorney holder is entitled to engage a counsel if so authorised. However, there is nothing in the Act 2019 or the Rules 2020 or the Regulation 2020 which may require an individual complainant to make authorisation only and only by way of a special power of attorney. In the absence of anything contrary to this in the Act, Rules or Regulations, it is clearly inferable that as per the normal prevalent practice in place in the consumer protection fora the individual complainants (who are not voluntary consumer organizations) can make their authorisation on plain paper. And it is plain reason that such authorisation should explicitly and unambiguously convey the intention of the complainant to appoint a particular individual as his agent. The person so appointed should be genuine and bonafide and not one proscribed under the provisions of Regulation 16 (6), (7) & (8). Nor can such person engage a counsel on his own. The inherent right of the individual complainant to change his agent as and when he so wishes and to engage a counsel as and when he so wishes remains unfettered. 7. In the instant case, authorisation was made on plain paper. The same is reproduced below: “Nomination (For Consumer’s representative to file the complaint and appear and make submissions on his behalf before the Forum) We, Abhishek Gupta and Tamanna Dugar, the above-named complainant hereby nominate Shri Kartikeya Khanna and whose address is B6101, Westend Heights, Akshay Nagar, Bengaluru – 560114, as my representative in the proceedings and confirm that any statement, acceptance or rejection made by him shall be binding on me. My representative’s specimen signature is appended below. Signature of Complainant C1 Signature of Complainant C2 Accepted (Signature of Representative)” A mere reading shows that the authorisation made on plain paper in favour of Mr. Kartikeya Khanna was explicit and unambiguous. When this authorisation was sufficient in itself, there was no need to critique the special power of attorney and the same should have been treated as superfluous and unnecessary. The principal objective of adjudicating the complaint on merit ought not to have been delayed or digressed from, by pointless critique of a superfluous and unnecessary document. We may add that in the present context we do not feel the need to enter into an examination of the special power of attorney in relation to the provisions of The Registration Act, 1908 or The Indian Stamp Act, 1899, since the document itself is superfluous and unnecessary in the instant case. 8. As far as the submission of learned counsel for the opposite party, that Mr. Kartikeya Khanna is proscribed by the provisions of Regulation 16 (6), (7) & (8), is concerned, we for the present do not find any material on record to justify or sustain such allegation. 9. We thus find that the two fora below erred in holding that Mr. Kartikeya Khanna did not possess authority to represent the complainants. 10. The learned counsel submit that the case is next listed on 03.03.2022 before the District Commission. 11. In the light of the afore discussion, the revision petition is disposed of with the following order: (i) The Order dated 07.11.2020 of the District Commission and the Order dated 02.02.2021 of the State Commission are set aside. (ii) The District Commission is requested to accept the authorisation in favour of Mr. Kartikeya Khanna made on plain paper and to decide the case on merit as per the law. (iii) Mr. Kartikeya Khanna shall not be entitled in turn to engage a counsel on his own. It goes without saying that at any time the complainants can change their agent or can conduct their case themselves, if and as they so wish. It also goes without saying that at any time the complainants (not their agent) are free to engage a counsel, if and as they so wish. (iv) The parties shall appear before the District Commission on the next date fixed i.e. 03.03.2022. 12. The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the parties in the petition and to their learned counsel as well as to the District Commission immediately. The stenographer is also requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately. | 
