Back
C. HARI SHANKAR
TDI Infrastructure Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assails order dated 23rd November, 2017, passed by the learned National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (the learned NCDRC) in Consumer Complaint 1747/2016, along with IA/10846/2016 and IA/1063/2017 (Vinod Kumar Gupta & Anr. v. TDI Infrastructure Ltd.) filed therein.
2. It may be noted, here, that, of the two complainants before the learned NCDRC, Complainant 2 settled the matter with the petitioner and, therefore, the proceedings before the learned NCDRC survived only in respect of Complainant 1 Vinod Kumar.
3. The petitioner has impleaded the Union of India as Respondent 1 as certain omnibus directions are sought, expressing grievance regarding the manner in which applications under Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are being disposed of by the learned NCDRC. I do not propose in this petition to enter into the said larger issue. Accordingly, the UOI is deleted from the array of parties.
4. There is no appearance on behalf of the respondents after 5th April, 2022, when a Counsel had appeared consequent to issuance of court notice on 31st March, 2022. Thereafter, however,
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a class action complaint under Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act requires specific averments to indicate 'sameness of interest' ....
Class action complaints under the Consumer Protection Act require demonstrable 'sameness of interest' among plaintiffs, which must be evident in the pleadings; mere common objectives are insufficient....
(1) A joint complaint stands in contrast to a complaint filed in a representative capacity. Sameness of cause of action is not equal to sameness of interest.(2) “Sameness of interest” is pre-requisit....
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 simil....
Court affirms jurisdiction under the Consumer Protection Act, establishes deficiency of service for failure to deliver possession, and directs refund with interest.
1) Keeping in view the Judgment passed by this Commission in Emmar MGF Land Ltd. & Ors. vs. Amit Puri [II (2015) CPJ 568 NC], wherein it was laid down that after the promised date of delivery, it is ....
(1) Interest – when the Project has not taken off, the OP Developer is duty bound to refund the amount to the said Complainants alongwith appropriate interest.
Deficiency in service occurs when a builder fails to deliver possession of property within the stipulated time, violating consumer rights.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
