Individuals are permitted to file separate complaints under the Consumer Protection Act without needing to seek permission for class actions.

1. Aggrieved by a common order dated 19.12.2017, passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Kolkata (for short the State Commission) in Interlocutory / Miscellaneous Applications in / and Complaint Case Nos. 45-52, 54 of 2017 and 328-332, 440-444 of 2016, the Complainants have preferred these Appeals under S.19 of the Consumer Protection Act , 1986 (for short the Act). By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the Complaints, 19 in number, observing as follows:

The materials on record indicate that the complainants have not filed any application for leave of the Commission to file the complaint in a representative capacity in accordance with the provisions of 13(6) of the Act. It should be noted here that the out of 690 flat owners, only 20 flat owners have lodged the complaint by themselves.

Under the garb of S.12(1)(c) or S.13(c) of the Act which are primarily meant for common services, e.g. deficiency in maintaining common areas or common facilities, complaint regarding goods are not maintainable before this Commission particularly, when the flats were booked for different amount on different dates under different terms and conditions. If complaint pertaining to deficiency in goods pertaining to many complaints is allowed in one complaint, it will create serious problem as observed by a Larger Bench of Hon'ble National Consumer Commission in the case of Ambrish Kumar Shukla & 21 Ors. (supra).

Now, the question comes up for consideration where causes of actions are united, whether the pecuniary jurisdiction shall depend upon value of aggregate value of the flats of the complex or not. The complainants in their petition of complaint have averred that they themselves entered into agreement or obtained allotment letter from OP No. 1 by themselves and the causes of action are quite separate. In order to understand the issue, it would be profitable to have a look to the provisions of O.2 R.3 of Civil Procedure Code which provides”

˜3. Joinder of cause of action”(1) Save as otherwise provided, a plaintiff may unit in the same suit several causes of action against the same defendant, or the same defendants jointly; and any plaintiffs having causes of action in which they are jointly interested against the same defendant or the same defendants joinly may unit such causes of action in the same suit;

2. Where causes of action are united, the jurisdiction of the Court as regards the suits shall depend on the amount or the value of the aggregate subject - matters as the date of instituting the suit.'
From the above provision, it will be quite clear that the complainants were within their rights to unite the cause of action in respect of all the flat owners. It is also made clear that where the causes of action are united, the pecuniary jurisdiction shall depend upon the value of the aggregate subject matter at the date of institution of the proceeding. In the case of Ambrish Kumar Shukla & 21 Ors. (supra), it has been laid down that it is the value of the goods or services and compensation claimed which determines the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum. In the said decision the Larger Bench of the Commission has observed... , since a complaint under S.12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act can be filed only there are numerous consumers having the same interest and it has to be filed on behalf of or for the benefit of all the consumers so interested i.e. all the numerous consumers having the same interest, it is the aggregate of the value of the goods purchased or services hired or availed o