A consumer complaint abates upon the death of a complainant if legal heirs are not substituted within the stipulated time; sufficient cause must be shown for condoning delays in such substitution applications.

JUDGMENT

Factual Backdrop

1. Consumer Case No. 697/2018 was preferred by O.P. Mehta and Siddharth Wadia, the respondents herein, against the petitioner DLF Homes Rajapura Pvt Ltd, before the learned National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ("the learned NCDRC") under Section 12(1)(c)¹ read with Section 13(6)² of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ("the Act", hereinafter) read with Order I Rule 8³ of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).

2. Consumer Case No. 697/2018 would be referred to, hereinafter, as "the complaint".

3. Consumer Case No. 697/2018 was filed as a "joint consumer complaint", and was stated to have been "preferred in a representative capacity ....for the benefit of entire class of persons having the same interest", before the learned NCDRC. The consumers purportedly having the same interest, whom the respondents sought to represent, were investors in the `Maiden Heights` housing project of the petitioner at Bangalore. The complaint averred that Clause 9.3(a) of the Flat Buyers Agreement, executed between the petitioner and each of the subscribers/investors in the project, required the petitioner to hand over, to the investors, possession of the flats in the project within 60 days from the date of their application. Qua Respondents 1 and 2, for example, the complaint alleged that, though the flats were required to be handed over on 13th April 2014 and 24th May 2014 respectively. Instead, highly belated final demand notes were issued; to Respondent 1 on 19th December 2016 and to Respondent 2 on 7th June 2016. This, it was alleged, had breached the Flat Buyers Agreement. Possession of the flats, it was asserted, was required to be handed over on 13th April 2014. Possession of the flats was offered to the investors much later, but, even then, the complaint alleged that the flats were not in habitable condition, and several facilities and amenities, which were required to be provided in the flats, including permanent electricity and water connection, were absent.

4. For these reasons, the complaint sought a direction to the petitioner to refund, to the respondents and other flat buyers having the same interest, the amounts deposited by them with the petitioner along with interest thereon @ 18% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of actual refund. Additionally, damages of Rs.10 lakhs to each investor and costs of the complaint were also claimed.

5. The complaint was accompanied by an application under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act, for permission to the respondents to file a consumer complaint in representative capacity, representing the interest of all the investors in the project. Permission, as sought, is yet to be granted by the learned NCDRC.

6. The impugned order, dated 18th April 2022, was passed before arguments were heard on the application of the respondents under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act. As such, this judgement examines the sustainability of the impugned order when permission to file a joint application was yet to be granted under Section 12(1)(c). The Court is, therefore, considering whether the learned NCDRC could have passed the impugned order dated 18th April 2022 at that stage.

7. On 19th July 2019, the learned NCDRC noted that, during the course of the proceedings before it in connection with the aforesaid complaint, Respondent 1 O.P. Mehta expired. Accordingly, the learned NCDRC directed the respondents to take steps to bring the legal representatives of Respondent 1 on record, by filing the requisite application within one week.