Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Ajit Bharihoke, Presiding Member, Anup K Thakur, Member
Ajay Aggarwal and Ors. —Complainants
versus
Unitech Reliable Projects Pvt. Ltd. —Opp. Party
Consumer Case No.531 of 2016
Decided on 11.1.2017
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Complainants:Mr. (Dr.) Harish Uppal, Advocate
For the Opp. Party:Ms. (Dr.) Sweta Bajaj, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Class action cannot be permitted where complainants have sought relief only for themselves and not for other consumers.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 12(1)(c)—Class action—Joint complaint—One or more consumers can be permitted to pursue a class action on behalf of themselves and numerous other consumers provided that they seek relief not only for themselves but for other numerous consumers who may be so interested in outcome of consumer complaint—Presently, two sets of complainants have sought relief only for themselves and not for other consumers who have booked flats in subject development project undertaken by opposite party—This is not a fit case for grant of permission under section 12 (1) (c) of the Act—Complaint rejected with liberty to complainants to avail of their legal remedy on same cause of action by approaching appropriate forum in appropriate form. (Paras 7 to 9)
Result: Complaint dismissed.
Ajit Bharihoke, Presiding Member—Complainant no.1 & 2 Ajay Agarwal and Ms. Shitall Aggarwal jointly booked premises no. 1502 on 14th Floor of Tower 06 in the development project Unitech Verve, Greater Noida undertaken by the opposite party builder located in Sector Pi-II, Greater Noida.
2. Complainant no.3 & 4 Sanjiv Razdan and Ms. Rashmi Razdan jointly booked apartment no. 901, Floor 9, Tower-4 in the project Unitech Verve, Sector Pi-II, Greater Noida.
3. The above said two sets of complainant have filed a joint consumer complaint against the opposite party alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party i.e. failing to deliver possession of the flats within the stipulated time and claimed following reliefs:
“1. That the respondent be directed to refund the principal amounts Rs.1,34,02,876/- ( Rs. One crore thirty four lacs two thousand eight hundred seventy six only) of both the set of complainants with simple interest / compensation @ 18% p.a. till the date of payment;
b. That in the alternate the flat with completion certificate and tripartite registration be given in habitable condition with interest @ 10% p.a. on the delayed period of about 6-1/2 years be paid along with the cost.
c. Final instalment becomes payable only after interest and damages for mental agony and harassment amount as deemed proper is fixed by the hon’ble Commission and is paid to the complainant and cost of this complaint.
That any other and further relief in favour of the complainants as the Hon’ble Commission may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
4. Notice of the complaint was sent to the opposite party vide proceedings dated 09.09.2016. The opposite party as per statement made at the Bar by its counsel Dr. Shweta Bajaj was served with the notice of the complaint on 23.09.2016. The opposite party, however, has failed to file written statement within the stipulated period of limitation. Counsel for the opposite party has raised an oral objection that the instant complaint cannot be proceeded with in view of Section 12 (1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the Act). Since the issue goes to the root of the case, we have heard the parties.
5. Dr. Shweta Bajaj, Advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite parties have submitted that instant complaint has been filed by two separate consumers in respect of delay in delivery of possession of the respective flats to the complainants as also numerous other consumers. It is argued that since the complainants have prayed for relief for themselves only, the joint complaint on behalf of two consumers cannot proceed in view of Section 12 (1) ( c) of the Act.
6. Dr. Harish Uppal, Advocate appearing on behalf of the complainants have submitted that instant complaint has been filed in terms of order of this Commission dated 11.03.2016 passed in earlier consumer complaint filed by complainant no. 1 & 2 who had jointly booked apartment no. 1502 on 14th floor of Tower 06 in the development project undertaken by the opposite party. It is further contended that as the grievance of both set of complainants relates to similar question of facts and law, there can be no bar to maintaining the joint complaint by the above noted consumers, namely, complainant no.1 & 2 and complainant no. 3 & 4 who are the joint allottees of the subject flats.
7. We have considered the rival contentions. So far as first contention of learned counsel for the complainants is concerned, the relevant order of this Commission granting liberty to complainant nos. 1 & 2 to file fresh complaint on the same cause of action is reproduced as under:
“Counsel for complainant is present.
Arguments heard.
The counsel for the complainant wants to withdraw this case with the liberty to file this case with a group, making more than Rs.1 crore.
Permission is granted.
The consumer complaint is dismissed as withdrawn.
As prayed, the petitioner is given the liberty to seek appropriate reli
