IMPORTANT POINT
Only a voluntary consumer association registered under Companies Act, 1956 or any other law can maintain a complaint under Section 12(1)(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

JUDGMENT :

R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.

1. This civil appeal under Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’), is filed by the complainant, aggrieved by the order dated 13.05.2015, passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), New Delhi in Consumer Complaint No.153 of 2010, rejecting the complaint filed by the appellant on the ground that, the appellant-Condominium has no locus standi to file the complaint since neither it is a ‘consumer’ nor it is a ‘recognised consumer association’ within the meaning of Section 12 of the Act.

2. The appellant/complainant is a statutory body under provisions of the Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act, 1972 (for short, ‘1972 Act’). It consists of members, who are the owners of the apartments in a multi-storey building, namely, “Sobha Hibiscus” situated in Amballipur Village, Varthur Hobli, of South Bangalore Taluk in Karnataka. The appellant-by the opposite party under the provisions of 1972 Act. When the appellant has filed complaint claiming certain reliefs before the NCDRC, the same is resisted by the opposite party, by taking a preliminary objection that the complainant is not a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of the Act, therefore, has no locus standi to file the complaint. The NCDRC, by referring to relevant provisions of the Act, has recorded a finding that the complainant is not a ‘recognised consumer association’ within the meaning of Section 12(1)(b) of the Act.

3. We have heard Sri Rajesh Mahale, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri Basava Prabhu S. Patil, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent-opposite parties.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended that as per the provisions of the Act, any association registered under Companies Act, 1956 or any other law for the time being in force can maintain a complaint. It is submitted that all members of the appellant-Condominium are members who have purchased flats in the building named as “Sobha Hibiscus” and it is formed with a view to represent the grievances of its members before the authorities and the tribunal, as such, there is no reason or justification in rejecting the complaint by the NCDRC on the ground that it has no locus standi to maintain the complaint. In support of his argument, learned counsel has relied on a Full Bench judgment of the NCDRC, New Delhi in Consumer Case No.560 of 2014 and batch titled Moulivakkam Trust Heights Flats Affected Buyers Association etc. v. M/s. Prime Sristi Housing Pvt. Ltd. & 29 Ors. etc., 2017 SCC OnLine NCDRC 163.

5. On the other hand, Sri Basava Prabhu S. Patil, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents, by taking us to relevant provisions of the 1972 Act and Consumer Protection Act, 1986, has submitted that the appellant cannot be said to be a voluntary consumer association, as per the provisions of the Act and it is also not a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of the Act. Learned counsel further submitted that the appellant is a body which has come into existence as per the declaration made by the opposite party, as required under the 1972 Act. It is submitted that as much as it is a body which has come into existence as per the mandatory provisions of the 1972 Act, as such, it cannot be said to be a voluntary consumer association. Further it is submitted that as the appellant will not fit into the definition of ‘consumer’ as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act, complaint as filed, is not maintainable and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order passed by the NCDRC as the same is in accordance with law.

6. Having heard learned counsels on both sides, we have perused the impugned order and other material placed on record. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsels on both sides with reference to the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the relevant provisions of the 1972 Act, we are of the view that there is no merit in this appeal so as to inte