NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Ajit Bharihoke, Presiding Member, Mrs. Rekha Gupta, Member
Delhi Compliance & Consultancy Integrated Pvt. Ltd. —Complainant
versus
Cellcast Interacticve India Pvt. Ltd.
& Ors. —Opp.Parties
Consumer Case No.121 of 2010
Decided on 5.5.2016

IMPORTANT POINT
Consumer complaint cannot be based on mere presumption.

Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 2(1)(d)—Lottery—Puzzle Lottery Programme—Unfair trade practice—Complainants had no personal interest in subject matter of complaint— Subsequent application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC has been filed with malafide intention to meet objection pertaining to locus standi of complainant company to file consumer complaint—Conduct of applicants disentitle them from being impleaded as complainants in instant case particularly for reason that they being directors of complainant company were aware of filing of complaint but they opted not to join as complainants—Even in supporting affidavit filed alongwith complaint, it was stated that complaint was filed for public cause with no personal interest—Application is abuse of process of law and liable to be rejected— Complainant company has not suffered any loss because of alleged scheme of opposite parties—Instant complaint has been filed on the basis of presumption that opposite parties have connived with each other to defraud millions of consumers at large—Complaint dismissed.

       Held: So far as IA No. 1 of 2010 is concerned, contention of authorised representative of the complainant, namely, Ravi Kumar who also is one of the applicant in IA No. 1 of 2010 is that he and Manish Kumar were lured by the representation in the aforesaid telecasted programme and suffered loss by making telephone calls to identify the face puzzle. It is contended that since the issue in the complaint is the same, therefore, in order to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings, the complainants may be allowed to join this complaint as additional complainants. In support of his contention, authorised representative for the complainant as also one of the applicants has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Savitri Devi Vs. District Judge, Gorakhpur & Ors in CA No. 932 of 1999 decided on 18.02.1999 AIR 1999 SC 976. In the above noted judgment, Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with scope of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC held that order 1 Rule 10 CPC enables the Court to add any person as a party at any stage of proceedings, if the presence of said person is necessary in order to enable to Court to effective and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit. There can be no dispute with the aforesaid proposition of law. However, in the instant case the facts are slightly distinct. On perusal of the complaint, it would be seen that the complaint has been filed on behalf of a Private Limited Company of which applicant Ravi Kumar and Manish Kumar are the only two directors. Perusal of the affidavit of applicant Ravi Kumar filed alongwith the complaint would show that in para 6 of the affidavit , Ravi Kumar stated that complaint has been filed purely in the interest of the large number of affected consumers with no personal interest involved. This implied that at the time of filing of complaint, Ravi Kumar and other director Manish Kumar who are the applicants made it clear that they had no personal interest in the subject matter of the complaint. That being the case, it is obvious that subsequent application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC being IA No. 1 of 2010 obviously has been filed with a malafide intention to meet the objection pertaining to locus standi of the complainant company to file consumer complaint.

        In the matter of Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal V. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Ors. 1992 2 SCR 1, Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the issue of impleading a party discussed the matter at length and held that though complaint is ‘dominus litis’ and not bound to sue every possible adverse claimant in the same suit, the Court may at any stage of the suit direct addition of parties and generally it is a matter of judicial discretion which is to be exercised in view of the facts and circumstances of particular case. In the instant case, the conduct of the applicants disentitle them from being impleaded as complainants in the instant case particularly for the reason that they being the directors of the complainant company were aware of the filing of complaint but they opted not to join as complainants and even in the supporting affidavit filed alongwith the complaint, it was stated that the complaint was filed for public cause with no personal interest. Thus, application in our view, is abuse of process of law and liable to be rejected. IA No. 1 of 2010 is accordingly dismissed.

       On careful going through the complaint, we find that complainant company has not suffered any loss because of alleged scheme of the opposite parties. The instant complaint has been filed on the basis of a presumption that the opposite parties have connived with each other to defraud millions of consumers at large. The opposite parties neither rewarded the consumers as promised nor declared the results, but to increase their sale, indulged in “gross and relentless exploitation of poor, naïve and gullible consumers”. However, in the entire body of the complaint, no specific victim of the so called scheme has been mentioned. Therefore, it is clear that instant complaint has been filed on a presumption of foul play on the part of the opposite parties, there being no identifiable victim of the alleged foul play. The instant complaint, in our view cannot even be termed as complaint with a valid cause of action. Thus, in our view, the complainant company cannot even be termed as “complainant” as envisaged under section 2 (1) (b) (ii) of the Act, and as such, complainant has no locus standi to maintain the complaint and is liable to be dismissed. In view of the discussion above, we are of the view that complaint is not maintainable. It is accordingly dismissed. (Paras 6, 7, 14 and 15)

       Result: Complaint dismissed.