SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
D.K. Jain, President, V.K. Jain, Member, Dr. B.C. Gupta, Member
Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors. —Complainants
versus
Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. —Opp.Party
Consumer Case No.97 of 2016
Decided on 7.10.2016

Counsel for the Parties:
For the Complainants:Mr. Uttam Datt, Mr. Tarun Sharma, Advocates
For the Opp.Party:Mr. K.V. Girish Chowdary, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
It is value of goods or services and compensation claimed which determines pecuniary jurisdiction of Consumer Forum.

Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 12(1)(c) and 13(6)—Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 1 Rule 8—Joint complaint—Maintainability of—Interest of persons on whose behalf claim is brought must be common or they must have a common grievance which they seek to get addressed—Defect or deficiency in goods purchased or services hired or availed of by them should be same for all consumers on whose behalf or for whose benefit complaint is filed—Oneness of interest is akin to a common grievance against same person—Primary object behind permitting a class action such as a complaint under Section 12(1)(c) of Consumer Protection Act being to facilitate decision of a consumer dispute in which a large number of consumers are interested without recourse to each of them filing an individual complaint, it is necessary that such a complaint is filed on behalf of or for benefit of all persons having such a community of interest—Complaint on behalf of only some of them will not be maintainable. (Para 11)

       (B) Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 21—Pecuniary jurisdiction of National Commission—Irrespective of value of goods purchased or service hired and availed of by an individual purchaser / allottee and compensation claimed in respect of an individual purchaser / allottee, National Commission would have pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain complaint if aggregate of value of goods purchased or services hired or availed of by numerous consumers on whose behalf or for whose benefit complaint is filed and total compensation claimed for all of them exceeds Rs.1.00 crore. (Para 12)

       (C) Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 11, 17 and 21—Determination of pecuniary jurisdiction—It is value of goods or services and compensation claimed which determines pecuniary jurisdiction of Consumer Forum—Act does not envisage determination of pecuniary jurisdiction based upon cost of removing deficiencies in goods purchased or services to be rendered to consumer—Cost of removing defects or deficiencies in goods or services would have no bearing on determination of pecuniary jurisdiction. (Para 14)

       Result: Complaint dismissed.

       

ORDER

V.K. Jain, Member—Vide order dated 24.05.2016, passed in CC No. 97 of 2016, the following issues relating to the interpretation of Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act were referred, by a two members Bench of this Commission, to a larger Bench for its decision:

(i) Whether a complaint under Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act filed on behalf of or for the benefit of only some of the numerous consumers having a common interest or a common grievance is maintainable or it must necessarily be filed on behalf of or for the benefit of all the consumers having a common interest or a common grievance against same person (s);

(ii) Whether a complaint under Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act is maintainable, before this Commission, where the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed in respect of none of the allottees / purchasers exceeds Rupees one crore.

(iii) Whether a complaint under Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act is maintainable before this Commission, where the value of the goods or services and the compensation claimed in respect of an individual allottee exceeds Rupees one crore in the case of one or more allottees but does not exceed Rupees one crore in respect of other allottees;

(iv) Whether a complaint under Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act is maintainable, in a case of allotment of several flats in a project / building, where the allotments / bookings / purchases are made on different dates and or the agreed cost of the flat and / or the area of the flat is not identical in all the bookings / allotments / purchases.

2. Vide order dated 11.08.2016, passed in First Appeal No. 166 of 2016, First Appeal No. 504 of 2016 and First Appeal No. 505 of 2016, the following issues were referred, by a single Member Bench of this Commission to the larger Bench:

(i) In a situation, where the possession of a housing unit has already been delivered to the complainants and may be, sale deeds etc. also executed, but some deficiencies are pointed out in the construction/ development of the property, whether the pecuniary jurisdiction is to be determined, taking the value of such property as a whole, OR the extent of deficiency alleged is to be considered for the purpose of determining such pecuniary jurisdiction.

(ii) Whether the interest claimed on such value by way of compensation or otherwise, is to be taken into account for determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of a particular consumer forum.

(iii) Whether “the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed” is to be taken as per the original value of such goods, or service at the time of purchase of such goods or hiring or availing of such service, OR such value is to be taken at the time of filing the claim, in question.

(iv) In complaints proposed to be filed under section 12(1)(c) of the Act with the permission of Consumer Forum, whether the pecuniary jurisdiction is to be determined taking the value of goods or service for individual consumer, OR the aggregate value of the properties of all consumers getting together to file the consumer complaint is to be taken into consideration.

(v) For filing the consumer complaints u/s 12(1)(c), whether a group of cooperative societies could join hands to file a joint complaint?

(vi) Whether the term ‘consumer’ given in section 12(1)(c) includes the term ‘Person’ as defined in section 2(m) of the Act, meaning thereby that groups of firms, societies, association, etc. could join hands to file the joint complaints, u/s 12(1)(c) of the Act.

(vii) Many a time, it is seen that more than one joint complaint are already pending in respect of one particular housing project. There is a view that while applying section 12(1)(c) of the Act, only one of these complaints should be allowed to continue as a lead case, and all other complaints should be dismissed and the parties in these dismissed complaints should be directed to become parties in






































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top