1. Consumer complaints filed by an allottees' association against a builder — Dispute over association registration — Adjournment of proceedings by the National Commission pending writ petition. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 )
Back
Next 
2023 Supreme(SC) 522
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.K. MAHESHWARI, M.M. SUNDRESH, JJ.
Alpha G184 Owners Association - Appellant
Versus
Magnum International Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 4718 of 2022 With Civil Appeal Nos. 329-332 of 2023
Decided On : 15-05-2023
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Ms. Priyanjali Singh, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Debesh Panda, AOR
For the Appellant(s) : Ms. Priyanjali Singh, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Debesh Panda, AOR
IMPORTANT POINT
Joint Complaint – Need for application of Order I Rule 8 of CPC would be required only in a case involving a complaint under Section 12(1)(c) of 1986 Act – It does not have any application when similarly placed complainants jointly make a complaint seeking very same relief.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 12(1)(c)[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 35(1)(c) – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order I Rule 8 – Real estate – Flat Buyer’s Agreement – Joint Complaint – Failure to construct and complete promised flats within timeline agreed upon – Definition of complainant under Section 2(b)(i) of 1986 Act, will include multiple consumers – Need for application of Order I Rule 8 of CPC would be required only in a case involving a complaint under Section 12(1)(c) of 1986 Act – It does not have any application when similarly placed complainants jointly make a complaint seeking very same relief – In such a case, there is no question of Order I Rule 8 CPC being complied with as they do not represent others, particularly when there is no larger public interest involved – Such complainants seek reliefs for themselves and nothing beyond – Complaints have already been registered and issue pertaining to registration and byelaws has got no relevancy – Pedantic and hyper-technical approach would cause damage to very concept of consumerism – Even after five years appellant is unable to proceed and cases have not progressed – National Commission shall proceed to hear the matters on merits. (Paras 17, 19, 23 and 24)
Facts of the case:
Appellant is an association formed by the allottees, registered under Section 6 of Haryana Registration and Regulation of Societies Act, 2012 vide certificate dated 01.11.2017. Respondent herein is a builder tasked with the development of a housing project. Alleging that respondent has failed in its obligation to construct and complete promised flats within the timeline agreed upon, with its failure to pay compensation for the delay caused at its instance, and questioning the additional demands raised, the appellant approached the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission by filing a Consumer Complaint No. 3753 of 2017 initially on behalf of 54 allottees, and thereafter, a few others. Accordingly, complaints have been filed in Consumer Complaint No(s). 3751, 3752, 3753 & 3754 of 2017, and 407 of 2018. These complaints are filed by the appellant on behalf of the named allottees.
Findings of Court:
There is no need to go into the issue as to whether the case would come under Section 12(1)(b) of the 1986 Act, for the good reason that the definition of ‘complainant’ under Section 2(b)(i) of 1986 Act, will include multiple consumers.
Result : Appeals allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Maintainability of complaints by an association with disputed registration — Distinction between joint complaints and representative actions — Proper forum for individual consumer grievances. (Para 13 , 14 )
3. Consumer protection laws are social benefit legislation requiring liberal interpretation — Distinction between joint complaints and representative suits under Order I Rule 8 CPC. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 )
4. Joint complaints by multiple consumers are maintainable without representative capacity; pecuniary jurisdiction is determined by the aggregate value of goods, services, and compensation claimed. (Para 17 , 18 , 21 , 22 )
5. Impugned orders set aside — Appeals allowed — National Commission directed to proceed with the complaints on merits expeditiously. (Para 23 , 24 )
6. What is the difference between a joint complaint and a complaint filed in a representative capacity under the Consumer Protection Act?
A joint complaint is filed by multiple consumers seeking redressal of their own grievances without representing others. A representative complaint is filed on behalf of numerous consumers having the same interest, requiring compliance with Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (Para 17 , 18 )
7. How is pecuniary jurisdiction determined when multiple consumers file a joint or representative complaint?
Pecuniary jurisdiction is determined by the aggregate value of the goods or services and the total compensation claimed for all consumers in the complaint, rather than the value associated with an individual consumer. (Para 21 , 22 )
8. What approach should courts adopt when interpreting the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act?
As social benefit-oriented legislation, the Act must be construed using a constructive liberal approach in favor of the consumer to achieve the legislative objective of protecting consumer interests. (Para 15 )
JUDGMENT :
M.M. Sundresh, J.
FACTS
1. The appellant is an association formed by the allottees, registered under Section 6 of the Haryana Registration and Regulation of Societies Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as “the HRRS Act”) vide certificate dated 01.11.2017. The respondent herein is a builder tasked with the development of a housing project. Inter alia alleging that the respondent has failed in its obligation to construct and complete the promised flats within the timeline agreed upon, with its failure to pay compensation for the delay caused at its instance, and questioning the additional demands raised, the appellant approached the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the National Commission’) by filing a Consumer Complaint No. 3753 of 2017 initially on behalf of 54 allottees, and thereafter, a few others. Accordingly, complaints have been filed in Consumer Complaint No(s). 3751, 3752, 3753 & 3754 of 2017, and 407 of 2018. These complaints are filed by the appellant on behalf of the named allottees.
2. Consequent to the interim order dated 08.01.2018 passed in Consumer Complaint No. 3753 of 2017, pleadings were completed followed by affidavits filed by the appellant along with the individual affidavits of the allottees. At that stage, the respondent filed a writ petition being W.P. (C) of 3221 of 2018 before the High Court of Delhi, which was stayed by this Court vide order dated 20.08.2018 in S.L.P. (C) No(s). 23021-23022 of 2018.
3. Notwithstanding the above, a complaint was filed by the respondent with the District Registrar of Societies, inter alia alleging that the aims and objectives enunciated in the byelaws of the appellant association were not in conformity with the HRRS Act. The District Registrar, Gurugram referred the matter to the State Registrar, Haryana by the order dated 03.10.2018.
4. The State Registrar, Haryana directed the appellant to amend its byelaws within six months indicating that any failure to comply would result in cancellation of the registration granted already. Aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal before the Registrar General, Haryana. As nothing transpired on ground qua the proceedings before the Registrar General, Haryana and without prejudice to its contentions, the appellant did make an amendment which was duly registered by the District Registrar, Gurugram on 08.11.2019.
5. The complaint was taken up by the National Commission for hearing on 13.11.2019. Having been informed of the order of the State Registrar dated 12.02.2019, the proceedings were adjourned sine die, awaiting the outcome of the appeal before the Registrar General, Haryana.
6. The appellant submitted an application to the Registrar General, Haryana in the pending Appeal No. 320 of 2019 to place on record the amended byelaws while reiterating the request for grant of stay. A writ petition was also filed by appellant being C.W.P. No. 34595 of 2019, wherein the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, at Chandigarh, vide its order dated 27.11.2019 passed an order directing the Registrar General, Haryana to decide the interim applications expeditiously.
7. Before the Registrar General, Haryana the respondent raised a contention placing reliance upon a copy of the notice dated 04.10.2019, by which the Department expressed its intention to cancel the registration. Accordingly, the Registrar General, Haryana passed an order restraining any cancellation of registration.
8. Under the aforesaid factual backdrop, the appellant filed an application before the National Commission to place on record the amended byelaws with the order of stay granted by the Registrar General, Haryana seeking a consequential prayer for the revival of the proceedings. The interlocutory application was allowed by taking on record the documents filed. The aforesaid order was sought to be recalled by the respondent through a review application in R.A. No. 52 of 2020.
9. Subsequently, the District Registrar, Gurugram by an order
