Per Hon’ble Mr.Justice R.C.Chavan, President

          This appeal questions dismissal of complaint no.30/2011 by the South Mumbai District Forum by its judgement dated 30/12/2011 on the ground that it was filed by the power of attorney holder and, therefore, it was not tenable.  No other grounds can be gathered from the order for dismissal of the complaint.  Appeal was listed today for admission hearing.  By consent we have taken it for final hearing at the admission stage itself. 

          We have heard Ms.Bhakti Sutar-Advocate and Ms.Mandakini Singh-Advocate i/b. Mr.Vikas Mahangare-Advocate for the appellant and Mr.Gagan Tiwari-Advocate i/b. Mr.Milind More-Advocate for the respondent.

          District Forum had, relying on the judgement of Bihar State Commission in the case of Punjab National Bank v/s. Ramakant Yadav, I(1997) CPJ 44/1997(i) CPR 262 Bihar, held that a person holding power of attorney is not included in the definition of ‘complainant’. Learned counsel has drawn our attention to the judgement of National Commission in the case of Consumer Education & Research Society and another v/s.  New India Assurance Co.Ltd. and others decided on 13/12/2007, whereby National Commission had categorically held that over technical view dismissing the complaint by holding that power of attorney is not entitled to file a complaint was erroneous.  In view of this appeal would have to be allowed and impugned order will have to be set aside allowing the parties to fight out the case in the District Forum on its own merits. 

          Appeal is therefore allowed. Impugned order is set aside. District Forum shall afford an opportunity to the respondent to appear before the forum and contest the complaint on merits.  Both the parties agree that they will appear before the District Forum without any notice on 20/01/2014.

Pronounced on 18^th November, 2013.