BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI
BEFORE : Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. SUBBIAH PRESIDENT
Tmt Dr. S.M.LATHA MAHESWARI MEMBER
F.A.NO.382/2014
(Against order in CCSr.NO.461/2014 on the file of the DCDRC, Coimbatore)
DATED THIS THE 9th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021
B. Saraswathi
W/o. Babu
Old No.552, New No.10/9
Maruthamalai Main Road In person
P.N.Pudur, Coimbatore – 641 041 Appellant / Complainant
Vs.
1. The Manager
Pazhamudir Nilayam
41, Arts College Road Served called absent
Coimbatore – 641 018
2. V.V.Shanmuga Nadar & Sons
VVS Gingili Oil Manufacturer M/s. S. Sivakumar & Lakshmi
96, Aruppukottai Road Counsel for
Virudunagar – 626 001 Respondents/ Opposite parties
The Appellant as complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission against the opposite parties praying for certain direction. The District Commission had rejected the complaint before taking into file. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred by the complainant praying to set aside the order of the District Commission dt.17.9.2014 in CCSr.No.461/2014.
This appeal coming before us for hearing finally today, upon hearing the arguments of the appellant represented by an agent and counsel appearing for Respondent and on perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Commission, this commission made the following order:
ORDER
JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH, PRESIDENT
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order of the District Commission, Coimbatore dt.17.9.2014 in CCSr.No.461/2014, by rejecting the unnumbered complaint on the ground that the representative appearing for complainant viz. Mr.Jayaraman had not filed any power of attorney to contest the case on behalf of the complainant.
2. The brief facts of the complaint before the District Commission are as follows:
The complainant had filed a complaint before the District Commission on the allegation that he had purchased VVS Gingili Oil Packet from the 1st Respondent/1st opposite party; that after opening the packet she noticed that there was a prize coupon inside the packet with the offer of participating in the prize contest. The last date for sending SMS to participate in the prize contest was over on the date of purchase, and hence she got disappointed and had mental agony for the reason that she could not participate in the said contest since the packet was sold after the due date fixed for the contest. Even after expiry of the date for contesting in the contest, the opposite parties have sold the oil as if the purchaser can participate in the contest. Thus alleging negligence against the opposite parties, the complainant had filed a complaint before the District Commission claiming compensation of Rs.25000/- alongwith cost.
3. Before the District Commission a group of three complainants had filed eight complaints by alleging same deficiency against the opposite parties. Out of the eight complaints one Mr.Jayaraman is the complainant in five complaints. In one complaint Mr.Ravichandran, and in other two complaints Mrs.B.Saraswathi were the complainants. All the eight complaints have been rejected before taking into file by the District Commission by a common order, on the ground that the name of the complainant was not mentioned in the bill/ invoice issued by the opposite parties, therefore, they cannot file the complaint claiming that they are the consumers. Moreover, out of the 8 complaints, though three complaints have filed by the other two persons viz. R.Ravichandran and B.Saraswathi even those complaints were also represented by Mr.Jayaraman without filing any authorization. Hence all the eight complaints were rejected by the District Commission. Aggrieved over the order impugned in CC.No.461/2014 the complainant viz. Mrs.B.Saraswathi filed this appeal, praying for setting aside the order of the District Commission, and praying for a direction to restore the complaint on the file of the District Commission.
4. The District commission had rejected the batch of complaints by a common order, including the complaint filed by the complainant on the ground that the complainants have not produced any proof to show that they themselves purchased the oil packet. In other words, the purchase bill does not contain the name of the complainants. Thereby the complainants have failed to prove that they are the consumers to file the present complaints.
5. Aggrieved by the said rejection now the present appeal has been filed by the complainant Tmt.Saraswathi. During the course of arguments, the representative of the appellant, had produced a judgement of the District Commission, Coimbatore, in CC.No.110/2016 dt.6.9.2016, to show that the District Commission, Coimbatore had passed an order by allowing the complaint in the same nature, filed by the complainant against the same 2nd Respondent. In that case also the bill produced had not contained the name of the complainants. Moreover it is also submitted that in any super markets, or in anyother grocery shops, the merchants are not giving bills in the name of the purchaser. The complainant also would submit that as per VAT Act the mentioning of the name of the consumers by the Retailers’ is not necessary. Therefore, there is no fault on the side of the complainant, for not producing the purchase order/bill in the name of the complainant. It is also further submitted that the complaint letters sent by the complainants addressed to the 1st opposite party, were returned to the complainants with an endorsement, that the addressee “refused” to receive the cover. Thus prayed for allowing the complaint.
6. Keeping the submissions of the representative of the complainant in our mind, we have perused the material placed on record and found that there is some force in the submission of the complainant with regard to the deficiency alleged against the opposite parties. We could also see that there is a prima-facie in the allegation raised by the complainant. Therefore, we are of the opinion that for the reason that the bills do not contain the name of the complainants, the allegation raised by the complainants/ gullible public cannot be refused to be looked into, without taking the complaint on file, and on hearing the case on either side.
7. The other grounds for rejection raised by the District Commission is that the complainant had not produced any authorization for permitting Mr.Jayaraman to conduct the case on her behalf. In this connection, it is seen from the cause title of the complaint that the said Saraswathi had filed the complaint on herself in an individual capacity and not represented either by Jayaraman or by anyother person. When the complaint is being filed by the complainant on an individual capacity, and the complainant had alone signed in the complaint, the said Jayaraman ought to have obtained authorization from the said Saraswathi to represent the case on her behalf. The District Commission has held that one Mr.Jayaraman was representing all the eight complaints, including the three complaints filed by other complainants, projecting him as an agent. But no authorization for said Jayaraman was filed on behalf of said Ravichandran and Saraswathi enabling the said Jayaraman to represent the case on their behalf.
As per Consumer Protection Rules 1988 an “Agent means a person duly authorized by a party to present any complaint or appeal or reply on it behalf before the State Commission or the District Forum”
In view of the above it is clear that a person should have a valid authorisation to conduct the case on behalf of a consumer.
The District Commission had also further held that in all the cases one Mr.Jayaraman alone cannot be affected.
Therefore, we hereby hold that the complainant or the agent duly authorized by the complainant alone can represent a complaint on behalf of the complainant.
8. In this connection the appellant/complainant had drawn our attention to order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.868/2003 dt.29.8.2011 held in C.Venkathalam Vs. Ajitkumar C.Shah and others. As per the above judgement the Apex court has held that the authorized agent can represent the case on behalf of the complainant. But in the case on our hand the situation is different, that the agent does not possess valid authorization. Therefore, the above judgement is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
9. Since the complaint filed against the opposite parties is in the nature of larger interest, and since there is a prima-facie in the allegation raised, we are of the considered opinion that the unnumbered complaint can be ordered to be taken on file. Hence the District Commission is directed to take up the complaint, provided the complainant shall represent the case by themselves or by providing valid authorization, authorizing any person including the said Jayaraman to represent the case on their behalf.
10. In this juncture, we also hereby noticed that in the appeal memorandum filed by the complainant the allegations were raised against the President of the District Commission, which seems to be like a personal allegation, which is not in good taste. Being the first time, we took a lenient view. We also made it clear, if such type of allegations continue, this commission will be constrained to take appropriate action against the complainant, in accordance with law. `
11. In the result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the order of the District Commission in CCSr.No.461/2014 dt.17.9.2014, and the District Commission is directed to take the complaint on file and proceed with the case according to law, provided the complainant shall fulfill the directions made supra.
S.M.LATHAMAHESWARI R. SUBBIAH
MEMBER PRESIDENT
