Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2020 Supreme(SC) 826

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, K.M. Joseph, JJ.
Vikrant Singh Malik & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Supertech Limited & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3526 of 2016
Decided On : 27-08-2020

Advocates appeared:
Shailesh Madiyal, Advocate, Kamal Mehta, Advocate, Sudhanshu Prakash, Advocate, Keshav Mohan, Advocate, R.K. Awasthi, Advocate, Prashant Kumar, Advocate, Piyush Vats, Advocate, Gaurav Kejriwal, Advocate, Ravindra Kumar, Advocate

Point of Law: Manner in which complaint shall be made - A complaint under Section 12(1)(c) can be filed only with permission of the District Forum - Procedural requirements under Order I Rule 8 of CPC are attracted as a consequence of provisions of Section 13(6) of the Act.

Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 12(1)(c) - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order I Rule 8 - One person may sue or defend on behalf of all in same interest - Deficiencies of services, unfair trade practices and irregularities - Whether persons who sue or are sued or defend, have same interest in one suit, it is not necessary to establish that such persons have same cause of action as persons on whose behalf, or for whose benefit, they sue or are sued, or defend suit, as case may be - While dismissing complaint, liberty was granted to each of complainants to file individual complaints before consumer forum having jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The judgment of NCDRC has given rise to present appeal.
Finding of the court:
Provisions of Explanation stand attracted in a situation where complaint is governed by provisions of Section 13(6) of Act. In other words, it is where provisions of Section 2(1)(b)(iv) are attracted that provisions of Section 13(6) apply and that, consequently, Explanation to Order I Rule 8 would stand attracted. Admittedly, present case is not of that description on basis of pleadings as they stand in complaint before NCDRC - NCDRC is at liberty to consider objection raised by first respondent on ground that some of reliefs in complaint before it were also the subject of writ proceedings before Allahabad High Court. We may also note at this stage that counsel appearing for appellants had sought liberty of this Court to move an application before the NCDRC for amendment of complaint and to plead essential requirements of Section 12(1)(c). Court need not consider a request of an anticipatory nature of this kind at present stage since no such application has been made. This will not preclude appellants from adopting such remedies as are available within parameters of law.
Result: Appeal disposed of

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - A complaint under Section 12(1)(c) can only be filed with the permission of the District Forum (!) . - The test for same interest under Section 12(1)(c) is the common grievance against the same person, not identical causes of action (!) . - The provisions of Order I Rule 8 of the CPC are attracted when a complaint is filed by a consumer under Section 2(1)(b)(iv) (!) . - The Explanation to Order I Rule 8 applies where Section 13(6) of the Act is attracted (!) . - The NCDRC must reconsider whether the complaint seeks common reliefs falling within the sameness of interest (!) .

What is the requirement for filing a complaint under Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act?

What test applies to determine if numerous consumers have the same interest for a representative complaint?

What is the effect of the Explanation to Order I Rule 8 in relation to complaints under this Act?

JUDGMENT

Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J. - This appeal arises from a judgment and order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ("NCDRC") dated 19 February 2016. Declining permission to the complainants to file a composite complaint under the provisions of Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ("Act"), the NCDRC dismissed the consumer complaint (Consumer Complaint No. 1290 of 2015) which was filed before it by twenty-six flat buyers, on the ground that:

"13. ....there is nothing common between the aforesaid complainants, so no permission can be granted to the above complainants to file one complaint in view of Section 12(1)(c) of the Act."

However, the complainants were granted the liberty to institute individual complaints before the appropriate forum.

2. The complaint before the NCDRC was instituted by twenty-six flat buyers, who had booked flats in a residential project (named "Oxford Square?) of the first respondent at Sector GH-06, 16B, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh (also known as "Noida Extension"). The following reliefs were sought in the complaint:

"a) Direct the Opposite Party No.1 to withdraw its offer of possession which has been made in absence of a valid Occupancy Certificate/Completion Certificate and to offer the possession after obtaining a proper occupancy/completion certificate within a fixed time;

b) Withdraw demand raised and refund if already paid, money which has been demanded/collected in the name of sale of open as well as covered car parking charges as no covered car parking has been created/built by the Opposite Party No.1 in the said project and the sale of open car parking slots are illegal, for each of the complainants, as per the claim sheet;

c) Direct the Opposite Party No.1 to charge/refund money under various heads as per the actual super area declared under the sanctioned building plans by Opposite Party No.1 to the appropriate authorities;

d) Direct the Opposite Party No.1 to withdraw cost escalation charges as captured in the demands raised with the Offer of Possession letters of various complainants;

e) Direct the Opposite Party No.1 to withdraw demand raised under the head "Farmer's compensation charges";

f) Direct the Opposite Party No.1 to withdraw/refund any demand raised/collected in the name of club charges as no club has been constructed in this society, individually for all the complainants as per the claim sheet;

g) Direct the Opposite Party No.1 to withdraw the interest levied on all the complainants now at the stage of final payments while making an offer of possession;

h) Direct Opposite Party No.2 to cancel/withdraw the licence granted to the Opposite Party No.1 and takeover the project and further complete the said project and handover the possession of the flats/floors to the complainants;

i) Direct the Opposite Party No.1 to withdraw the demand raised in the name of Labour Welfare charges from all the complainants;

j) Direct the Opposite Party No.1 to withdraw the demand raised in the name of water connection charges and further not to take any undertaking for levy of any charges under this head at a later date;

k) Direct Opposite Party No.1 to withdraw the demand on account of EDC charges/refund the amount collected in the name of EDC charges as no such charges have been levied by the appropriate authorities;

l) Direct the Opposite Party No.1 to charge and collect maintenance charges from all the complainants only upon delivery of possession of their respective flats with proper occupancy certificate(s) in place and after execution of a maintenance agreement in this regard;

m) Direct the Opposite Party No.1 to pay delayed possession penalty on a monthly basis with effect from the date the possession was to be delivered individually to all the complainants, till such time the possession is actually delivered to the complainants with proper occupancy certificate(s) in place;

n) Direct the Opposite Party No.1 to pay a Compensation of Rs.4,00,30,070/-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document