ORDER : Leave granted. 2. The grievance of the appellant is that he was named as the opposite party No. 1 in a dispute before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. He had authorised one Dr. M.S. Kamath to represent him before the Commission. However, the Commission refused to allow Dr. Kamath to cross- examine the complainant. 3. Repeated opportunities have been given by us to the respondents to file counter affidavit. No counter affidavit has been filed. 4. The only question to be decided is whether Dr. Kamath could represent the appellant. We have been taken through Section 2b Rule 14(1) 14(3) the Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 which defines an 'agent' as under : "agent' means a person duly authorised by a party to present any complaint, appeal or reply on its behalf before the National Commission." 5. Rule 14(1) allows the complainant or his agents to file the complaint. similarly Rule 14(3) allows parties or their agents to appear before the National Commission. Given the wide definition of the word 'agent', there was no reason, if the Commission were otherwise satisfied that Dr. Kamath was authorised on behalf of the appellant, to refuse to allow Dr. Kamath to represent the appellant before it and to cross-examine the complainant. 6. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has relied upon section 33 of the Advocates Act, 1961. Section 33 makes it clear that Advocates alone will be entitled to practices before any Court or before any authority, etc. "except as otherwise provided in the Act or in any other law for the time being in force". The Consumer Protection Act read with the Rules would be "a law for the time being in force". 7. We, therefore, allow the appeal and permit Dr. Kamath or any other duly authorised agent of the appellant to represent the appellant before the Commission in the pending proceedings. However, we make it clear that the authorisation should be in writing. Appeal allowed.