Joint complaints under the Consumer Protection Act must demonstrate sameness of interest among consumers, with jurisdiction based on total consideration exceeding statutory limits.

1. The present Consumer Complaints have been filed under S.58 read with S.35(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") by the Complainants on their own behalf and that of other Allottees of the Apartments / Units in the Residential Housing Projects to be developed by the Opposite Parties Builders / Developers, inter alia, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.

2. Vide order dated 6.7.2022, passed in CC No. 48 of 2021, following issues were referred to, by a single Member bench of this Commission to the larger Bench for its decision :
(i) Whether the permission to file a Complaint under S.35(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 should be granted or not;
(ii) if not, whether a Joint Complaint be permitted in terms of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'Brigade Enterprise Ltd. v. Anil Kumar Virmani & Others, (Civil Appeal No. 1777 of 2021), decided on 17.12.2021.
(iii) Whether each of the persons who have approached this Commission be treated by paying consideration of Rs.2 crore or more.

3. Since the question of law involved all these Complaints is similar / identical, all these Consumer Complaints is being dealt with by this common order.

4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Complainants relied upon the Judgment passed by this Commission in Ambrish Kumar Shukla v Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. , 2017 (I) CPJ 1 (NC) : (CC No. 97 of 2016), wherein it was held that, so long as the grievance of the consumers is common and identical relief is claimed for all of them, the cost, size, area of the flat / plot and the date of booking / allotment / purchase, would be wholly immaterial and submitted that in a case where Complainants having common grievance and seeking common reliefs against the same Opposite Party, the relevance of cost stood diluted by pre - dominance of the commonality of the grievance and the relief sought. Difference in cost of the Units of the Complainants is immaterial as the only aspect that remains material is the sameness of interest.

5. Learned Counsel further relying upon Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vikrant Singh Malik v. Supertech Ltd. , 2020 (IV) CPJ 45 (SC) : 2021 (I) SLT 284 : 2020 (9) SCC 145 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had affirmed that the test under S.12(1)(c) is of the sameness of the interest. The complaint is filed in a representative capacity, on behalf of or for the benefit of all the consumers who are interested. Similarly, under S.2(1)(b)(iv), in defining the expression "complainant", the statute incorporates the identical test of the sameness of interest, where there are numerous consumers. In such a situation, the expression "complainant" has been defined, inter alia, to include one or more consumers, each of whom has the same interest where there are numerous consumers involved in the dispute, submitted that the cost or the amount paid by the Complainants needs to be considered cumulatively as doing so individually shall be detrimental to the ethos of the provisions of S.35 of the Act and lead to the above difficulties despite the sameness of interest being consistent amongst the Complainants.

6. He further relied upon the Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Brigade Enterprise Ltd. v. Anil Kumar Virmani & Others, 2022 (4) SCC 138 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that either there sho