JUDGMENT

1. These proceedings emanate from Consumer Case No. 1204/2017, which was a complaint filed before the learned National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) against the petitioner Lucina Land Development Ltd. and others by 51 allotees of flats in a project of the petitioners, titled -Indiabulls Greens Panvel' (the project', hereinafter). The complaint, preferred under Section 21(a)(i)[1] read with Section 12(1)(c) [2] and 22(1)[3] of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (-the 1986 Act') alleged that the petitioners were guilty of deficiency in service and were involved in unfair trade practices within the meaning of Section 2(1)(g)[4] and 2(1)(r) of the 1986 Act.

[1] 21. Jurisdiction of the National Commission. - Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the National Commission shall have jurisdiction - (a) to entertain - (i) complaints where the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed exceeds rupees one crore;

[2] 12. Manner in which complaint shall be made. - (1) A complaint in relation to any goods sold or delivered or agreed to be sold or delivered or any service provided or agreed to be provided may be filed with a District Forum by - ***** (c) one or more consumers, where there are numerous consumers having the same interest, with the permission of the District Forum on behalf of, or for the benefit of, all consumers so interested;

[3] 22. Power and procedure applicable to National Commission. - (1) The provisions of sections 12, 13 and 14 and the rules made thereunder for the disposal of complaints by the District Forum shall, with such modifications as may be considered necessary by the Commission, be applicable to the disposal of disputes by the National Commission

[4] (g) -deficiency' means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality; nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service'

2. The respondents, who were allottees of units in the project, alleged, in the complaint filed by them before the learned NCDRC, that they were -consumers' of the petitioners within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(ii)[5] of the 1986 Act, as the units had been booked by the respondents for residence. Paras 4 and 11 to 19 of the complaint, which set out the grievances of the respondents, may be reproduced thus:

[5] (d) "consumer" means any person who - (ii) hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who 'hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purposes; Explanation. - For the purposes of this clause, -commercial purpose? does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment;

'4. That, this complaint is preferred on behalf of the Complainants and for the benefit of all the allottees, who are consumers and are having the same interest as a Class Actions Petition. The Complainants submit that the facts of the case of each of the Complainants and all the allottees are same and the issues involved, disputes & controversies are common in nature having a common interest and have suffered identical deficiency of service and unfair trade practice, the terms and conditions of allotment are almost same and rely on identical evidences and therefore, come under the definition of Complainant as per section 2(1)(b)(iv) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.