NATIONALCONSUMERDISPUTESREDRESSALCOMMISSION

NEWDELHI

CONSUMERCASENO.97OF2016

1.AMBRISHKUMARSHUKLA&21ORS.
H.No.412,1stFloor,Sector6,Bahadurgarh
Jhajjar
Haryana124507 ...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1.FERROUSINFRASTRUCTUREPVT.LTD.
SETHFARMS,KHASRANO.41,42,44,45,MEHRAULI,GURGAONROAD,
GHITORNI,NEWDELHI110030 ...........Opp.Party(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLEMR.JUSTICED.K.JAIN,PRESIDENT
HON'BLEMR.JUSTICEV.K.JAIN,MEMBER
HON'BLEDR.B.C.GUPTA,MEMBER

FortheComplainant: Mr.UttamDatt,Advocate
Mr.TarunSharma,Advocate
FortheOpp.Party: Mr.K.V.GirishChowdary,Advocate

Dated:07Oct2016
ORDER
JUSTICEV.K.JAIN,MEMBER

Videorderdated24.05.2016,passedinCCNo.97of2016,thefollowingissuesrelatingtotheinterpretationofSection12(1)(c)oftheConsumer
ProtectionActwerereferred,byatwomembersBenchofthisCommission,toalargerBenchforitsdecision:

(i)WhetheracomplaintunderSection12(1)(c)oftheConsumerProtectionActfiledonbehalfoforforthebenefitofonlysomeofthe
numerousconsumershavingacommoninterestoracommongrievanceismaintainableoritmustnecessarilybefiledonbehalfoforforthe
benefitofalltheconsumershavingacommoninterestoracommongrievanceagainstsameperson(s)

(ii)WhetheracomplaintunderSection12(1)(c)oftheConsumerProtectionActismaintainable,beforethisCommission,wherethevalue
ofthegoodsorservicesandcompensation,ifany,claimedinrespectofnoneoftheallottees/purchasersexceedsRupeesonecrore.
 (iii)WhetheracomplaintunderSection12(1)(c)oftheConsumerProtectionActismaintainablebeforethisCommission,wherethevalue
ofthegoodsorservicesandthecompensationclaimedinrespectofanindividualallotteeexceedsRupeesonecroreinthecaseofoneor
moreallotteesbutdoesnotexceedRupeesonecroreinrespectofotherallottees

(iv)WhetheracomplaintunderSection12(1)(c)oftheConsumerProtectionActismaintainable,inacaseofallotmentofseveralflatsina
project/building,wheretheallotments/bookings/purchasesaremadeondifferentdatesandortheagreedcostoftheflatand/orthearea
oftheflatisnotidenticalinallthebookings/allotments/purchases.

2.Videorderdated11.08.2016,passedinFirstAppealNo.166of2016,FirstAppealNo.504of2016andFirstAppealNo.505of2016,the
followingissueswerereferred,byasingleMemberBenchofthisCommissiontothelargerBench:

(i)Inasituation,wherethepossessionofahousingunithasalreadybeendeliveredtothecomplainantsandmaybe,saledeedsetc.also
executed,butsomedeficienciesarepointedoutintheconstruction/developmentoftheproperty,whetherthepecuniaryjurisdictionistobe
determined,takingthevalueofsuchpropertyasawhole,ORtheextentofdeficiencyallegedistobeconsideredforthepurposeof
determiningsuchpecuniaryjurisdiction.

(ii)Whethertheinterestclaimedonsuchvaluebywayofcompensationorotherwise,istobetakenintoaccountfordeterminingthe
pecuniaryjurisdictionofaparticularconsumerforum.

(iii)Whetherthevalueofthegoodsorservicesandcompensation,ifany,claimedistobetakenaspertheoriginalvalueofsuchgoods,
orserviceatthetimeofpurchaseofsuchgoodsorhiringoravailingofsuchservice,ORsuchvalueistobetakenatthetimeoffilingthe
claim,inquestion.

(iv)Incomplaintsproposedtobefiledundersection12(1)(c)oftheActwiththepermissionofConsumerForum,whetherthepecuniary
jurisdictionistobedeterminedtakingthevalueofgoodsorserviceforindividualconsumer,ORtheaggregatevalueofthepropertiesofall
consumersgettingtogethertofiletheconsumercomplaintistobetakenintoconsideration.

(v)Forfilingtheconsumercomplaintsu/s12(1)(c),whetheragroupofcooperativesocietiescouldjoinhandstofileajointcomplaint?

(vi)Whetherthetermconsumergiveninsection12(1)(c)includesthetermPersonasdefinedinsection2(m)oftheAct,meaning
therebythatgroupsoffirms,societies,association,etc.couldjoinhandstofilethejointcomplaints,u/s12(1)(c)oftheAct.

(vii)Manyatime,itisseenthatmorethanonejointcomplaintarealreadypendinginrespectofoneparticularhousingproject.Thereisa
viewthatwhileapplyingsection12(1)(c)oftheAct,onlyoneofthesecomplaintsshouldbeallowedtocontinueasaleadcase,andallother
complaintsshouldbedismissedandthepartiesinthesedismissedcomplaintsshouldbedirectedtobecomepartiesintheleadcase.Whether
theaboveviewiscorrect,ORinsuchcases,allcomplaintsshouldbeclubbedandheardtogether.

3.InFirstAppealNo.644of2015,thecomplainantbookedanapartmentwithrespondentno.1.Theallotmentwascancelledbytherespondent
onaccountofnonpaymentofthebalancesaleconsideration.Beingaggrieved,thecomplainantapproachedtheconcernedDistrictForumbywayof
acomplaint,seekingrestorationoftheflatwithpossessionandcompensation.Therespondentcontestedthecomplaintandtookapreliminary
objectionthattheDistrictForumdidnotpossesstherequisitepecuniaryjurisdictiontoentertainthecomplaint.TheDistrictForumvideitsorder
dated22.01.2013,noticingthatthepriceoftheapartmentwasRs.46,02,653/,heldthatthesaidForumhadnopecuniaryjurisdictiontoentertainthe
complaint.TheappellantthenapproachedtheconcernedStateCommissionbywayofafreshConsumerComplaint.TheStateCommission
however,tooktheviewthatifthegrievancepertainstoadeficiencyinservice,thecomplainanthastoassessthedeficiencyintheserviceavailedby
himandthevalueoftheflatisnottobetakenintoconsiderationwhiledecidingwhetherthesaidCommissionhadpecuniaryjurisdictiontohearthe
complaintornot.NoticingthatthecomplainanthadclaimedRs.10,00,000/ascompensation,thecomplaintwasdismissed.Beingaggrieved,the
complainanthasapproachedthisCommissionbywayoftheaforesaidappeal.

Videorderdated11.03.2016,passedintheaforesaidappeal,BenchNo.1ofthisCommission,noticingadivergenceofopinionamongstvarious
BenchesofthisCommission,ontheissueofpecuniaryjurisdiction,referredthesaidissueraisedintheaforesaidappeal,toalargerBench.The
aforesaidissuehowever,issubsumedinissueno.1referredtothelargerBenchinFirstAppealNo.166of2016.

4.Section12(1)oftheConsumerProtectionActreadsasunder:

(1)Acomplaintinrelationtoanygoodssoldordeliveredoragreedtobesoldordeliveredoranyserviceprovidedoragreedtobeprovided
maybefiledwithaDistrictForumby

(a)theconsumertowhomsuchgoodsaresoldordeliveredoragreedtobesoldordeliveredorsuchserviceprovidedoragreedtobe
provided

(b)anyrecognizedconsumerassociationwhethertheconsumertowhomthegoodssoldordeliveredoragreedtobesoldordeliveredor
serviceprovidedoragreedtobeprovidedisamemberofsuchassociationornot

(c)oneormoreconsumers,wheretherearenumerousconsumershavingthesameinterest,withthepermissionoftheDistrictForum,on
behalfof,orforthebenefitof,allconsumerssointerestedor

(d)theCentralortheStateGovernment,asthecasemaybe,eitherinitsindividualcapacityorasarepresentativeofinterestsofthe
consumersingeneral.

5.Section13(6)oftheConsumerProtectionActreadsasunder:

(6)Wherethecomplainantisaconsumerreferredtoinsubclause(iv)ofclause(b)ofsubsection(1)ofsection2,theprovisionsofrule8
ofOrderIoftheFirstScheduletotheCodeofCivilProcedure,1908(5of1908)shallapplysubjecttothemodificationthateveryreference
thereintoasuitordecreeshallbeconstruedasareferencetoacomplaintortheorderoftheDistrictForumthereon.

Section2(1)(b)oftheConsumerProtectionActreadsasunder:

(b)complainantmeans

(i)aconsumeror

(ii)anyvoluntaryconsumerassociationregisteredundertheCompaniesAct,1956(1of1956)orunderanyotherlawforthetimebeinginforceor

(iii)theCentralGovernmentoranyStateGovernmentor
(iv)oneormoreconsumers,wheretherearenumerousconsumershavingthesameinterest

(v)incaseofdeathofaconsumer,hislegalheirorrepresentative]whoorwhichmakesacomplaint

6.OrderIofRule8oftheCodeofCivilProcedurewhichfindsreferenceinSection13(6)oftheConsumerProtectionAct,readsasunder:

8.Onepersonmaysueordefendonbehalfofallinsameinterest.(1)Wheretherearenumerouspersonshavingthesameinterestinonesuit,

(a)oneormoreofsuchpersonsmay,withthepermissionofthecourt,sueorbesued,ormaydefendsuchsuit,onbehalfof,orforthebenefitof,all
personssointerested

(b)thecourtmaydirectthatoneormoreofsuchpersonsmaysueorbesued,ormaydefendsuchsuit,onbehalfof,orforthebenefitof,allpersons
sointerested.

(2)Thecourtshall,ineverycasewhereapermissionordirectionisgivenundersubrule(1),attheplaintiffsexpense,givenoticeofthe
institutionofthesuittoallpersonssointerested,eitherbypersonalservice,or,where,byreasonofthenumberofpersonsoranyothercause,such
serviceisnotreasonablypracticable,bypublicadvertisement,asthecourtineachcasemaydirect.

(3)Anypersononwhosebehalf,orforwhosebenefit,asuitisinstituted,ordefended,undersubrule(1),mayapplytothecourttobemadea
partytosuchsuit.

(4)Nopartoftheclaiminanysuchsuitshallbeabandonedundersubrule(1),andnosuchsuitshallbewithdrawnundersubrule(3)ofrule1of
OrderXXIII,andnoagreement,compromiseorsatisfactionshallberecordedinanysuchsuitunderrule3ofthatOrder,unlessthecourthasgiven,
attheplaintiffsexpensesnoticetoallpersonssointerestedinthemannerspecifiedinsubrule(2).

(5)Whereanypersonsuingordefendinginanysuchsuitdoesnotproceedwithduediligenceinthesuitordefence,thecourtmaysubstituteinhis
placeanyotherpersonhavingthesameinterestinthesuit.

(6)Adecreepassedinasuitunderthisruleshallbebindingonallpersonsonwhosebehalf,orforwhosebenefit,thesuitisinstituted,ordefended,
asthecasemaybe.

7.Section12(1)(c)oftheConsumerProtectionActwhenreadwithOrderIRule8oftheCodeoftheCivilProcedurewillapplyif(i)the
consumersarenumerous(ii)Theyhavethesameinterest(iii)thenecessarypermissionoftheConsumerForumisobtainedand(iv)noticeinterms
ofSubrule(2)ofRule8ofOrderIisgiven.Ithowever,isnotnecessarythatthecauseofactionavailabletoalltheconsumersshouldalsobethe
same.Whatisrequiredissamenessoftheinterestandnotthesamecauseofaction.

8.ThescopeandobjectoftheprincipleembodiedinRule8ofOrderIofCodeofCivilProcedurewasstatedasunderbyaFourMembersBench
ofthisCommissioninAnilTextoriumPvt.Ltd.Vs.RajivNiranjanbhaiMehta,III(1997)CPJ31(NC):

6.TheprincipleadmittedinallCourts/Tribunals/QuasiJudicialAuthoritiesuponquestionsaffectingthesuitorspersonandhis
libertyandhispropertyisthattherightsofnomanshallbedecidedunlesshehimselfispresent.Therefore,allpersonshavinganinterestin
thesubjectmatteraretobemadepartiesinasuitorotherproceedingsbuttheprovisionsofOrderIRule8oftheCodeofCivilProcedure
 hascarvedoutanexception.Itprovidesthatwhereanumberofpersonsaresimilarlyinterestedinasuitoneormoreofthemcanwiththe
permissionoftheCourtoronadirectiongivenbytheCourt,sueorbesuedonbehalfofthemselvesandothers.Theprovisionsofthisrule
havebeenincludedintheCodeinpublicinteresttoavoidmultiplicityoflitigationandtofacilitatethedecisiononquestionsinwhichalarge
numberofpersonsareinterested,withoutrecoursetotheordinaryprocedure.Theseprovisionsaremeantforthebenefitandprotectionof
thepersonswhohavethesameinterestasonewhohasfiledthesuit.TheexceptionisadoptedbytheCourtstoavoidinconvenience,because
ifallpersonsinterestedaremadeparties,therewouldbeconsiderabledelayandjusticewouldbehampered.

..Itistheexistenceofasufficientcommunityofinterestamongthepersonsonwhosebehalforagainstwhomthesuitisinstituted
thatshouldbethegoverningfactorindecidingastowhethertheprocedureprovidedintherepresentativesuitshouldbeadoptedornot.

8.Thecomplainantscanbeoneormoreconsumers,wheretherearenumerousconsumershavingthesameinterest.Theinterest
mustbecommontothemallortheymusthaveacommongrievancewhichtheyseektogetredressed.

Wherealltheconsumersjointlyinterestedaremadepartiestothecomplaint,itisnotarepresentativecomplaintinthestrict
senseoftheprovisionsofOrderIRule8andnopermissionisnecessary.

9.Theobtainingofaquasijudicialpermissionisanessentialconditionforbindingthoseconsumersotherthanthoseactually
paritiestothecomplaint.TheConsumerFORAhavetoexerciseajudicialdiscretioningrantingpermissiontoacomplainanttosueina
representativecapacityhavingregardtothenatureofthecomplaintandthereliefssought.

9.InTheChairman,TamilNaduHousingBoard,MadrasVs.T.N.Ganapathy,CivilAppealNo.3002of1983decidedon07.02.1990,a
numberofpersons,includingtherespondentbeforetheHonbleSupremeCourt,wereallottedresidentialplotsbyTamilNaduHousingBoardata
tentativeprice.Aftermorethantenyears,freshdemandsweremadebytheBoard,threateningdispossessionoftheallotteesincaseofnonpayment
ofthesaiddemand.Asuitwasthenfiledbytherespondent,whoclaimedtoberepresentingalltheallottees,onthegroundthatthecasesofallof
themwereidentical.Thesuitwascontested,interaliaonthegroundthatasuitinarepresentativecapacityunderOrder1Rule8oftheCodeof
CivilProcedurewasnotmaintainable.TheTrialCourtandFirstAppellateCourtupheldthemaintainabilityofthesuitbutdismissedthesameon
merit.TheHighCourthowever,reversedthesaiddecisionsanddecreedthesuit.Beingaggrieved,theBoardapproachedtheHonbleSupreme
CourtbywayofaSpecialLeavePetition.OnthemaintainabilityoftheSuit,itwascontendedonbehalfoftheappellantthatsincetheinjury
complainedwasinrespectofseparatedemandofmoneyagainsteachoftheallottees,givingrisetodifferentcausesofaction,thesaidprovisionwas
notapplicable.Itwasemphasizedthatthose,whohadbeenservedwiththeadditionaldemandwereinterestedindefeatingonlythedemand
individuallyreferabletoeachofthem.Itwasalsocontendedthateachoneoftheallotteeswasnotinterestedinwhathappenstotheothersand
therefore,theallotteesshouldfileseparatesuits.Thecontentionhowever,didnotfindfavourwiththeHonbleSupremeCourt,whichinteralia
observedandheldasunder:

Wedonotfindanymeritintheargument.TheprovisionsofOrder1ofRule8havebeenincludedintheCodeinthepublicinterestso
astoavoidmultiplicityoflitigation.Theconditionnecessaryforapplicationoftheprovisionsisthatthepersonsonwhosebehalfthesuitis
beingbroughtmusthavethesameinterest.Inotherwordseithertheinterestmustbecommonortheymusthaveacommongrievancewhich
theyseektogetredressed.InKodiaGoundarvs.VelandiGoundar,ILR1955Mad.339,aFullBenchoftheMadrasHighCourtobservedthat
ontheplainlanguageofOrder1,Rule8,theprincipalrequirementtobringasuitwithinthatRuleisthesamenessofinterestofthenumerous
persononwhosebehalforforwhosebenefitthesuitisinstituted.TheCourt,whileconsideringwhetherleaveundertheRuleshouldbe
grantedornot,shouldexaminewhetherthereissufficientcommunityofinteresttojustifytheadoptionoftheprocedureprovidedunderthe
 Rule.Theobjectforwhichthisprovisionisenactedisreallytofacilitatethedecisionofquestions,inwhichalargenumberofpersonsare
interested,withoutrecoursetotheordinaryprocedure.Theprovisionmust,therefore,receiveaninterpretationwhichwillsubservetheobject
foritsenactment.ThereisnowordsintheRuletolimititsscopetoanyparticularcategoryofsuitsortoexcludeasuitinregardtoaclaim
formoneyorforinjunctionasthepresentone.

Itistruethateachoftheallotteesisinterestedindividuallyinfightingoutthedemandseparatelymadeorgoingtobemadeonhim
and,thus,separatecausesofactionariseinthecase,but,thatdoesnotmakeOrder1,Rule8inapplicable.Earliertherewassomedoubt
abouttheRulecoveringsuchacasewhichnowstandsclarifiedbytheExplanationintroducedbytheCPC(Amendment)Act,1976,which
readsasfollows:

ExplanationForthepurposeofdeterminingwhetherthepersonswhosueoraresued,ordefend,havethesameinterestinonesuit,
itisnotnecessarytoestablishthatsuchpersonshavethesamecauseofactionasthepersonsonwhosebehalf,orforwhosebenefit,
theysueoraresued,ordefendthesuit,asthecasemaybe.

Theobjectsandreasonsfortheamendmentwerestatedbelow:

OBJECTSANDREASONS:Clause55SubClause(iv),Rule8ofOrder1dealswithrepresentativesuits.Underthisrule,where
therearenumerouspersonshavingthesameinterestinonesuit,oneormoreofthemmay,withpermissionoftheCourt,sueorbe
sued,onbehalfofallofthem.Therulehascreatedadoubtastowhetherthepartyrepresentingothersshouldhavethesamecauseof
actionasthepersonsrepresentedbyhim.Theruleisbeingsubstitutedbyanewruleandanexplanationisbeingaddedtoclarifythat
suchpersonsneednothavethesamecauseofaction.

Thereis,therefore,nodoubtthatthepersonswhomayberepresentedinasuitunderOrder1,Rule8neednothavethesamecauseof
action.ThetrialcourtinthepresentcasewasrightinpermittingtherespondenttosueonbehalfofalltheallotteesofAshokNagar.

10.SincebyvirtueofSection13(6)oftheConsumerProtectionAct,theprovisionsoftheOrder1Rule8ofCPCapplytotheconsumer
complaintsfiledbyoneormoreconsumerswheretherearenumerousconsumershavingthesameinterest,thedecisionoftheHonbleSupreme
CourtinTamilNaduHousingBoard(supra)wouldsquarelyapply,whileansweringthereference.Thepurposeofgivingastatutoryrecognitionto
suchacomplaintbeingtoavoidthemultiplicityoflitigation,theeffortshouldbetogiveaninterpretationwhichwouldsubservethesaidobjective,
byreducingtheincreasinginflowoftheconsumercomplaintstotheConsumerForums.Thereductioninthenumberofconsumercomplaintswill
becosteffectivenotonlyfortheconsumersbutalsofortheserviceprovider.

11.Referencedated24.5.2016

IssueNo.(i)

AsheldbytheHonbleSupremeCourtinTamilNaduHousingBoard(supra),theinterestofthepersonsonwhosebehalftheclaimisbroughtmust
becommonortheymusthaveacommongrievancewhichtheyseektogetaddressed.Thedefectordeficiencyinthegoodspurchased,orthe
serviceshiredoravailedofbythemshouldbethesameforalltheconsumersonwhosebehalforforwhosebenefitthecomplaintisfiled.Therefore,
theonenessoftheinterestisakintoacommongrievanceagainstthesameperson.If,forinstance,anumberofflatsorplotsinaprojectaresoldby
abuilder/developertoanumberofpersons,hefailstodeliverpossessionofthesaidflats/plotswithinthetimeframepromisedbyhim,anda
complaintisfiledbyoneormoresuchpersons,eitherseekingdeliveryofpossessionofflats/plotspurchasedbythemandotherpurchasersinthe
saidproject,orrefundofthemoneypaidbythemandtheotherpurchaserstothedeveloper/builderissought,thegrievanceofsuchpersonsbeing
commoni.e.thefailureofthebuilder/developertodelivertimelypossessionoftheflats/plotssoldtothem,theywouldhavesameinterestinthe
subjectmatterofthecomplaintandsufficientcommunityofinteresttojustifytheadoptionoftheprocedureprescribedinOrder1Rule8ofthe
CodeofCivilProcedure,providedthatthecomplaintisfiledonbehalfoforforthebenefitofallthepersonshavingacommongrievanceagainstthe
samedeveloper/builder,andidenticalreliefissoughtforallsuchconsumers.

TheprimaryobjectbehindpermittingaclassactionsuchasacomplaintunderSection12(1)(c)oftheConsumerProtectionActbeingtofacilitatethe
decisionofaconsumerdisputeinwhichalargenumberofconsumersareinterested,withoutrecoursetoeachofthemfilinganindividualcomplaint,
itisnecessarythatsuchacomplaintisfiledonbehalfoforforthebenefitofallthepersonshavingsuchacommunityofinterest.Acomplainton
behalfofonlysomeofthemthereforewillnotbemaintainable.Ifforinstance,100flatbuyers/plotbuyersinaprojecthaveacommongrievance
againsttheBuilder/DeveloperandacomplaintunderSection12(1)(c)oftheConsumerProtectionActisfiledonbehalfoforforthebenefitofsay
10ofthem,theprimarypurposebehindpermittingaclassactionwillnotbeachieved,sincetheremaining90aggrievedpersonswillbecompelled
eithertofileindividualcomplaintsortofilecomplaintsonbehalfoforforthebenefitofthedifferentgroupofpurchasersinthesameproject.This,
inourview,couldnothavebeentheLegislativeintent.ThetermpersonssointerestedandpersonshavingthesameinterestusedinSection12(1)
(c)mean,thepersonshavingacommongrievanceagainstthesameserviceprovider.Theuseofthewordsallconsumerssointerestedandon
behalfoforforthebenefitofallconsumerssointerested,inSection12(1)(c)leavesnodoubtthatsuchacomplaintmustnecessarilybefiledon
behalfoforforthebenefitofallthepersonshavingacommongrievance,seekingacommonreliefandconsequentlyhavingacommunityofinterest
againstthesameserviceprovider.

Subrule(2)ofRule8ofOrderIoftheCodeofCivilProceduremandatestheCourttogivenoticeoftheinstitutionofthesuit/complainttoall
thepersonssointerested,meaningtherebytothepersonshavingthesameinterest,i.e.acommongrievance,onwhosebehalforforwhosebenefit
thecomplaintisinstituted.Noticecanbeeitherbywayofpersonalserviceorwherepersonalserviceisnotreasonablypracticable,bywayofa
publicadvertisement.Theaforesaidprovisionclearlyenvisagesinstitutionofasuit/complaintonbehalforforthebenefitofnotonlythosewho
approachtheCourt/Forumbutalsoonbehalfoforforthebenefitofthepersonsotherthantheplaintiffs/complainants,buthavingthesame
grievance.HadtheLegislativeintentbeentopermitsuchacomplaintonlyonbehalfofthepersonsdecidingtoapproachtheCourt/Forum,there
couldbenooccasionforrequiringtheserviceofnoticeintheaforesaidmanner,sincetherecanbenoquestionofservinganynoticeonthosewho
arealreadybeforetheCourt/Forum.

SubRule(5)ofRule8ofOrderIenablestheCourttosubstitutethenameofanypersonhavingsameinterestinthesuitasplaintiffwhereit
findsthatthepersonsuingthesuitisnotproceedingwithduediligenceinthesuit.TheaforesaidpowergiventotheCourtalsoindicatesthatasuit
intermsoforder1Rule8oftheCodeofCivilProcedurecommonlytermedasaclasssuitisintendedonbehalforforthebenefitofallthepersons
havingacommongrievanceagainstthesamepartyandseekingthesamereliefnotonbehalfoforforthebenefitofonlysomeofthem.

12.IssueNo.(ii)and(iii)

Section21oftheConsumerProtectionAct,totheextentitisrelevantprovidesthatthisCommissionshallhavejurisdictiontoentertain
complaintswherethevalueofthegoodsorservicesandcompensation,ifany,claimedexceedsRs.1.00crore.Therefore,whathastobeseen,forthe
purposeofdeterminingthepecuniaryjurisdiction,isthevalueofthegoodsorservicesandtheamountofthecompensationclaimedinthe
complaint.Iftheaggregateof(i)thevalueofthegoodsorservicesand(ii)thecompensationclaimedinthecomplaintexceedsRs.1.00crore,this
Commissionwouldhavepecuniaryjurisdictiontoentertainthecomplaint.Similarly,iftheaggregateofthevalueof(i)thegoodsorservicesand(ii)
compensation,ifany,claimedinthecomplaintexceedsRs.20.00lacsbutdoesnotexceedRs.1.00Crore,theStateCommissionwouldhavethe
pecuniaryjurisdictiontoentertainthecomplaint.SinceacomplaintunderSection12(1)(c)oftheConsumerProtectionActcanbefiledonlywhere
therearenumerousconsumershavingthesameinterestandithastobefiledonbehalfoforforthebenefitofalltheconsumerssointerestedi.e.all
ofthenumerousconsumershavingthesameinterest,itistheaggregateofthevalueofthegoodspurchasedorserviceshiredoravailedof,byall
thosenumerousconsumersandthetotalcompensation,ifany,claimedforallthosenumerousconsumers,whichwoulddeterminethepecuniary
jurisdictionofthisCommission.Iftheaggregateofthevalueofthegoodspurchasedortheserviceshiredoravailedofbyalltheconsumershaving
thesameinterestandthetotalcompensation,ifany,claimedforallofthemcomestomorethanRs.1.00crore,thepecuniaryjurisdictionwouldrest
withthisCommissionalone.Thevalueofthegoodspurchasedortheserviceshiredoravailedofandthequantumofcompensation,ifany,claimed
inrespectoftheoneindividualconsumertherefore,wouldbeabsolutelyirrelevantforthepurposeofdeterminingthepecuniaryjurisdictioninsucha
complaint.Infact,thisissueisnomoreresIntegrainviewofthedecisionofaFourMembersBenchofthisCommissioninPublicHealth
EngineeringDepartmentVs.UpbhoktaSanrakshanSamitiI(1992)CPJ182(NC).Intheabovereferredcase,acomplaintwaspreferred,
seekingtorecovercompensationforallegednegligenceonthepartofthepetitionerwhichhadresultedinalargenumberofpersonsgettinginfected
byJaundice.Thenamesof46suchpersonswerementionedinthecomplaintbutitwasallegedthattherewerethousandsofothersuffererswho
weresimilarlyplacedandthatcomplaintwasfiledonbehalfofallofthem.ThecomplainanthadsoughtcompensationofRs.20,000/forevery
studentvictim,Rs.10,000/foreverygeneralvictimandRs.1,00,000/forthelegalrepresentativesofthosewhohaddiedduetoJaundice.The
DistrictForumheldthatithadnopecuniaryjurisdictiontoadjudicateuponthecomplaint.TheStateCommissiontooktheviewthattheDistrict
Forumhastogobythevalueasspecifiedforeachconsumer.RejectingtheviewtakenbytheStateCommission,thisCommissioninteraliaheldas
under:

5.InouropinionthispropositionisclearlywrongsinceunderthetermsofSection11oftheActthepecuniaryjurisdictionofthe
DistrictForumwoulddependuponthequantumofcompensationclaimedinthepetition.TheviewexpressedbytheStateCommissionisnot
basedonacorrectunderstandingorinterpretationofSection11.OntheplainwordsusedinSection11oftheAct,theaggregatequantumof
compensationclaimedinthepetitionwilldeterminethequestionofjurisdictionandwhenthecomplaintisfiledinarepresentativecapacity
onbehalfofseveralpersons,asinthepresentcase,thetotalamountofcompensationclaimedbytherepresentativebodyonbehalfofallthe
personswhomitrepresentswillgovernthevaluationofthecomplaintpetitionforpurposesofjurisdiction.

6.ThequantumofcompensationclaimedinthepetitionbeingfarinexcessofRs.1.00lactheDistrictForumwasperfectlyrightin
holdingthatithadnojurisdictiontoadjudicateuponthecomplaint.ThereversalofthesaidorderbytheStateCommissionwascontraryto
law.

Therefore,irrespectiveofthevalueofthegoodspurchasedortheservicehiredandavailedofbyanindividualpurchaser/allotteeandthe
compensationclaimedinrespectofanindividualpurchaser/allottee,thisCommissionwouldhavethepecuniaryjurisdictiontoentertainthe
complaintiftheaggregateofthevalueofthegoodspurchasedortheserviceshiredoravailedofbythenumerousconsumersonwhosebehalforfor
whosebenefitthecomplaintisfiledandthetotalcompensationclaimedforallofthemexceedsRs.1.00crore.

IssueNo.(iv)

13.Asnotedearlier,whatisrequiredfortheapplicabilityofSection12(1)(c)oftheConsumerProtectionActreadwithOrderIRule8oftheCode
ofCivilProcedureisthesamenessoftheinteresti.e.acommongrievanceofnumerouspersonswhichissoughttogetredressedthrougha
representativeaction.Therefore,solongasthegrievanceoftheconsumersiscommonandidenticalreliefisclaimedforallofthem,thecost,size,
areaoftheflat/plotandthedateofbooking/allotment/purchase,wouldbewhollyimmaterial.Forinstance,ifabuilder/developerhassold100
flatsinaprojectoutofwhich25arethreebedroomflats,25aretwobedroomflatsand50areonebedroomflatsandhehasfailedtodelivertimely
possessionofthoseflats,alltheallotteesirrespectiveofsizeoftheirrespectiveflats/plots,thedateoftheirrespectivepurchaseandthecostagreed
tobepaidbythemhaveacommongrievancei.e.thefailureofthebuilder/developertodeliverpossessionoftheflat/plotsoldtothemanda
complaintfiledforthebenefitoforonbehalfofallsuchconsumersandclaimingsamereliefforallofthem,wouldbemaintainableunderSection
12(1)(c)oftheConsumerProtectionAct.Thereliefclaimedwillbethesame/identicalifforinstance,inacaseoffailureofthebuildertodeliver
timelypossession,refund,orpossessionorinthealternativerefundwithorwithoutcompensationisclaimedforallofthem.Differentreliefsforone
ormoreoftheconsumersonwhosebehalforforwhosebenefitthecomplaintisfiledcannotbeclaimedinsuchacomplaint.

14.Referenceorderdated11.8.2016

IssueNo.(i)

ItisevidentfromabareperusalofSections21,17and11oftheConsumerProtectionActthatitsthevalueofthegoodsorservicesandthe
compensation,ifany,claimedwhichdeterminesthepecuniaryjurisdictionoftheConsumerForum.TheActdoesnotenvisagedeterminationofthe
pecuniaryjurisdictionbaseduponthecostofremovingthedeficienciesinthegoodspurchasedortheservicestoberenderedtotheconsumer.
Therefore,thecostofremovingthedefectsordeficienciesinthegoodsortheserviceswouldhavenobearingonthedeterminationofthepecuniary
jurisdiction.Iftheaggregateofthevalueofthegoodspurchasedortheserviceshiredoravailedofbyaconsumer,whenaddedtothecompensation,
ifany,claimedinthecomplaintbyhim,exceedsRs.1.00crore,itisthisCommissionalonewhichwouldhavethepecuniaryjurisdictiontoentertain
thecomplaint.ForinstanceifapersonpurchasesamachineformorethanRs.1.00crore,amanufacturingdefectisfoundinthemachineandthecost
ofremovingthesaiddefectisRs.10.00lacs,itistheaggregateofthesaleconsiderationpaidbytheconsumerforthemachineandcompensation,if
any,claimedinthecomplaintwhichwoulddeterminethepecuniaryjurisdictionoftheConsumerForum.Similarly,ifforinstance,ahouseissold
formorethanRs.1.00crore,certaindefectsarefoundinthehouse,andthecostofremovingthosedefectsisRs.5.00lacs,thecomplaintwouldhave
tobefiledbeforethisCommission,thevalueoftheservicesitselfbeingmorethanRs.1.00crore.

IssueNo.(ii)

InGhaziabadDevelopmentAuthorityVs.BalbirSingh(2004)5SCC65,theHonbleSupremeCourtinteraliaobservedandheldasunder:

Howeverthepowertoanddutytoawardcompensationdoesnotmeanthatirrespectiveoffactsofthecasecompensationcanbe
awardedinallmattersatauniformrateof18%perannum.Asseenabovewhatisbeingawardediscompensationi.e.recompenseforthe
lossorinjury.

AlongwithrecompensingthelosstheCommission/Forummayalsocompensateforharassment/injurybothmentalandphysical.
Similarly,compensationcanbegivenifafterallotmentismadetherehasbeencancellationofschemewithoutanyjustifiablecause.

Thatcompensationcannotbeuniformandcanbestofillustratedbyconsideringcasewherepossessionisbeingdirectedtobedelivered
andcaseswhereonlymoniesaredirectedtobereturned.Incaseswherepossessionisbeingdirectedtobedeliveredthecompensationfor
harassmentwillnecessarilyhavetobelessbecauseinawaythatpartyisbeingcompensatedbyincreaseinthevalueofthepropertyheis
getting.Butincaseswheremoniesarebeingsimplyreturnedthenthepartyissufferingalossinasmuchashehaddepositedthemoneyinthe
hopeofgettingaflat/plot.Heisbeingdeprivedofthatflat/plot.Hehasbeendeprivedofthebenefitofescalationofthepriceofthatflat/
plot.Therefore,thecompensationinsuchcaseswouldnecessarilyhavetobehigher.
TheHonbleSupremeCourtthusrecognizedthattheinteresttotheflatbuyersispaidbywayofcompensation.Infact,thoughtheConsumer
ProtectionAct,authorisestheConsumerForumtoawardcompensation,nospecificpowerstoawardinteresthasbeenconferreduponit.Therefore,
inviewoftheprovisionscontainedinSections21,17and11oftheConsumerProtectionAct,theamountoftheinterest,whichcanbepaidas
compensation,mustnecessarilybetakenintoaccountfordeterminingthepecuniaryjurisdiction.

IssueNo.(iii)

ConflictingordershavebeenpassedbytheBenchesofthisCommissionastocutoffdatefordeterminingthevalueofthegoodsortheservices,as
thecasemaybe,intermsofSection21,17and11oftheConsumerProtectionAct.Oneviewisthatthevalueofthegoodsorservicesmeansthe
considerationagreedtobepaidbytheconsumerforthegoodspurchasedortheserviceshiredandavailedof,whereastheotherviewisthatthevalue
ofthegoodsorservicesasthecasemaybe,forthepurposeofdeterminingthepecuniaryjurisdictionoftheConsumerForumshouldbethemarket
valueofthegoodsorservicesonthedateofinstitutionoftheconsumercomplaint.Though,theuseofthewordvalueintheabovereferred
Sections,tendstosuggestthatitisthemarketpriceofthegoodsortheservices,asthecasemaybe,whichwhenaddedtotheamountof
compensation,ifany,claimedinthecomplaint,shoulddeterminethepecuniaryjurisdictionoftheConsumerForum,onadeeperconsiderationwe
areoftheviewthatitisthepriceofthegoodsortheservicesasthecasemaybeagreedtobepaidbytheconsumerwhichwouldberelevantforthe
purposeofdeterminingthepecuniaryjurisdiction.Ifthemarketpriceofthegoodsortheservicesasthecasemaybe,onthedateofinstitutionofthe
complaintistodeterminethepecuniaryjurisdiction,themarketpricebeingdynamicandeverfluctuating,thiswouldcreateanunendinguncertainty
withrespecttotheConsumerForumbeforewhichthecomplaintistobeinstituted.Forinstance,ifthereare10flatbuyersinthesameproject,
identicalconsiderationisagreedtobepaidbythemtotheserviceprovider,oneofthemdecidestoapproachtheConsumerForumatatimewhenthe
prevailingmarketvalueoftheflatismorethanRs.1.00crore,thecomplaintwillhavetobeinstitutedbeforethisCommission.Iftheprevailing
marketvalueoftheflatatthetimewhenanotherflatbuyerwhoagreedtopaythesameconsiderationtotheserviceproviderdecidestoapproachthe
ConsumerForumislessthanRs.1.00crore,hewillhavetoapproachtheconcernedStateCommission.Therefore,therewillbetwoseparateForums
dealingwiththecomplaintsofthesetwoconsumerswhoagreedtopaysamepricefortheflatpurchasedbythem.Inonecase,theorderpassedin
theconsumercomplaintwouldbechallengedbeforetheHonbleSupremeCourtwhereasintheothercase,itwouldbechallengedbeforethis
Commission.Creatingsuchananomaloussituation,inourview,couldnothavebeenthelegislativeintent.

Moreover,ifthepecuniaryjurisdictionoftheConsumerForumvarieswiththemarketpriceofthegoodsorservicesatthetimethecomplaintis
institutedthereisalikelihoodofthevaluationgivenbythecomplainant,beingseriouslychallengedbytheoppositeparty.Ifthishappens,the
ConsumerForumwillfirsthavetodeterminethemarketpriceofthegoodsorservicesasthecasemaybe,atthetimeofinstitutionofthecomplaint.
Suchadeterminationislikelytobeatimeconsumingprocess,besidesbeingincapableofdeterminationbywayofasummaryprocedure,whichthe
ConsumerForumsareadopting.Suchaninterpretationtherefore,islikelytobecounterproductiveandresultinaninordinatedelayinthedisposalof
theconsumercomplaint.Ontheotherhand,nosuchdifficultyislikelytoariseifthesaleconsiderationagreedtobepaidbytheconsumeristakenas
thevalueofthegoodsorservices.Inthatcase,theamountofcompensationasclaimedinthecomplaintneedstobeaddedtotheagreed
considerationandtheaggregateoftheconsiderationandthecompensationclaimedinthecomplaintwoulddeterminethepecuniaryjurisdictionof
theConsumerForum.

IssueNo.(iv)

InviewoftheanswertotheissuesNo.(ii)and(iii)ofthereferenceorderdated24.5.2016,itistheaggregatevalueofthegoodspurchasedor
theserviceshiredoravailedofbyalltheconsumersonwhosebehalforforwhosebenefitthecomplaintisfiledwhich,addedtothetotalamountof
compensation,ifany,claimedforallsuchconsumersdeterminesthepecuniaryjurisdictionoftheConsumerForum.Thevalueofthegoods
purchasedortheserviceshiredoravailedofbyanindividualconsumerandthecompensationclaimedinrespectofanindividualconsumerwould
havenobearingonsuchdetermination.

IssueNo.(v)and(vi)

ItisevidentfromabareperusalofSection12(1)(c)oftheConsumerProtectionActthatacomplaintundertheaforesaidprovisioncanbefiled
onlybyoneormoreconsumers.ThetermconsumerhasbeendefinedinSection2(1)(d)oftheConsumerProtectionActtomeananypersonwho
buysanygoodsforaconsiderationorwhohiresoravailsofanyservicesforaconsiderationandincludestheuserotherthanthepurchaserofthe
goodsandbeneficiaryotherthanthepersonhiringoravailingoftheservicesforconsideration,withthepermissionofthepersonpurchasingthe
goodsorhiringoravailingoftheservices,asthecasemaybe.Therefore,aCooperativeSocietyoragroupofCooperativeSocietiesisnotentitledto
fileacomplaintunderSection12(1)(c)oftheConsumerProtectionActunlessthecooperativesocietyitselfisaconsumerasdefinedinSection2(1)
(d)oftheConsumerProtectionAct.Similarly,nogroupofFirms,SocietyorAssociationcanfilesuchacomplaintunlesssuchgroupofFirms,
SocietyorAssociationitselfisaconsumerasdefinedinSection2(1)(d)oftheConsumerProtectionAct.Nopersonwhodoesnotqualifyasa
consumerintermsofSection2(1)(d)oftheConsumerProtectionAct,canbepartytoacomplaintunderSection12(1)(c)oftheActnorcanhebe
amongstthepersonsonwhosebehalforforwhosebenefitsuchacomplaintisfiled.Infact,apersonwhoisnotaconsumer,asdefinedinSection
2(1)(d)oftheAct,caninvokethejurisdictionofaConsumerForum,bywayofaconsumercomplaint.

IssueNo.(vii)

Asnotedearlier,acomplaintunderSection2(1)(c)oftheConsumerProtectionActreadwithOrderIRule8oftheCodeofCivilProcedure
canbefiledwheretherearenumerousconsumershavingthesameinteresti.e.acommongrievanceagainstthesamepersonandthecomplaintis
filedonbehalfoforforthebenefitofallsuchnumerousconsumers,andseekingsamereliefforallofthem.Therefore,theActdoesnotenvisage
morethanonecomplaintsonbehalfofsuchconsumers,inarepresentativecharacter.Thedecisioninonecomplaintfiledinarepresentativecapacity
willbindalltheconsumersonwhosebehalforforwhosebenefitthecomplaintisfiled,asprovidedinOrderIRule8(6)oftheCodeofCivil
Procedure.Therefore,onceacomplaint,inarepresentativecapacityisfiledunderSection12(1)(c)oftheConsumerProtectionAct,andtherequisite
permissionforfilingsuchacomplaintisgivenbytheConsumerForum,asecondcomplaint,inarepresentativecapacityunderSection12(1)(c)of
theConsumerProtectionActwouldnotbemaintainablebyoronbehalfofconsumershavingthesameinterestandseekingthesamereliefandif
filed,isliabletobedismissedwithlibertytoseekimpleadmentinthecomplaintalreadyinstitutedinarepresentativecapacitywiththerequisite
permissionoftheConsumerForum.Sinceacomplaintinarepresentativecapacitycanbefiledonlyonbehalfofalltheconsumershavingthesame
interesti.e.acommongrievanceandseekingthesamereliefagainstthesameperson,anindividualcomplaintexpressingsuchagrievancewillnotbe
maintainableandtheonlyrecourseavailabletoaconsumerhavingthesamegrievanceistoseekimpleadmentinthecomplaintfiledinthe
representativecapacity.IfsuchindividualcomplaintsareallowedevenaftertherequisitepermissionintermsofSection12(1)(c)isgranted,that
wouldbeincontradictionofOrderIRule8(6)oftheCodeofCivilProcedurewhichmakesanorderpassedinasuit/complaintfiledina
representativecapacitybindingonallthepersonsonwhosebehalforforwhosebenefitthesuit/complaintisfiled.

However,asfarastheindividualcomplaintsinstitutedpriortograntoftherequisitepermissionunderSection12(1)(c)oftheConsumer
ProtectionActisconcerned,theyhavingbeenvalidlyinstituted,suchcomplainantscannotbecompelledtowithdrawtheirindividualcomplaintand
becomeapartytothesubsequentlyinstitutedcomplaintfiledinarepresentativecapacity.Theyhavingalreadytakenrecoursetothelegal
proceedings,thecomplaintinstitutedinarepresentativecapacity,willnotbedeemedtohavebeeninstitutedonbehalfoforforthebenefitofsuch
complainantseveniftheirgrievanceisidenticaltothegrievanceexpressedinthecomplaintinstitutedinarepresentativecharacter.Theyhaving
alreadyapproachedtheConsumerForumfortheredressaloftheirgrievance,itwouldbedifficulttosaythatthecomplaintfiledinarepresentative
characterwasintendedontheirbehalforfortheirbenefitaswell.Infact,theremaybeaconsumerhavinganidenticalgrievance,whohasalready
approachedtheConsumerForumbywayofanindividualcomplaintandwhosecomplainthasalreadybeenadjudicatedbeforetherequisite
permissionunderSection12(1)(c)oftheConsumerProtectionActisaccordedinacomplaintfiledinarepresentativecapacity.Since,therecannot
bemorethanoneadjudicationinrespectofthesamegrievanceofthesameperson,itcannotbesaidthatthecomplaintinstitutedinarepresentative
capacitywasfiledonhisbehalforforhisbenefitaswell.Therefore,theconsumers,whoarealreadybeforetheConsumerForumwhentherequisite
permission,intermsofSection12(1)(c)oftheConsumerProtectionActisaccorded,willbeoutofthepurviewofthesaidcomplaint.Sinceit
cannotbesaidthatthecomplaintintherepresentativecapacitywasfiledontheirbehalforfortheirbenefitaswell,theorderpassedinsucha
complaintwillnotbebindingonthem.Ifhowever,suchpersonswanttowithdrawtheirpendingcomplaintsandjointhecomplaintinstitutedinthe
representativecapacity,thereisnobarontheiradoptingsuchacourseofaction.Thedecision,ofcourse,wouldrestwiththemwhethertocontinue
withtheindividualcomplaintalreadyinstitutedbythemortowithdrawthesaidcomplaintandbecomepartytothecomplaintfiledina
representativecapacity.

Inoneofthewrittensubmissions,itiscontendedthatsinceacomplaintinarepresentativecapacitycanbefiledonlyonbehalfofallthe
consumerhavingthesameinterest,suchacomplaintwillnotbemaintainablewhereoneormoreindividualcomplaints,expressingsuchagrievance
arealreadypending.Wehowever,areunabletoacceptthecontention.NosuchrestrictionfindsplaceinSection12(1)(c)oftheConsumer
ProtectionActorinOrderIRule8oftheCodeofCivilProcedure.Acceptingsuchacontentionwoulddefeattheverypurposeofallowingsucha
suit/complaintsinceeveryconsumerwouldbecompelledtofileanindividualcomplaintleadingtomultiplicityofproceedings.Suchan
interpretationwouldnotservethecauseeitheroftheconsumeroroftheserviceprovider.

15.Forthereasonsstatedhereinabove,thereferencesareansweredasunder:

Referencedated24.5.2016

IssueNo.(i)

AcomplaintunderSection12(1)(c)oftheConsumerProtectionActcanbefiledonlyonbehalfoforforthebenefitofalltheconsumers,
havingacommoninterestoracommongrievanceandseekingthesame/identicalreliefagainstthesameperson.Suchacomplainthowever,shall
notbedeemedtohavebeenfiledonbehalfoforforthebenefitoftheconsumerswhohavealreadyfiledindividualcomplaintsbeforetherequisite
permissionintermsofSection12(1)(c)oftheConsumerProtectionActisaccorded.

IssueNo.(ii),(iii)and(iv)

AcomplaintunderSection12(1)(c)oftheConsumerProtectionActismaintainablebeforethisCommissionwheretheaggregateofthevalue
ofthegoodspurchasedortheserviceshiredoravailedofbyalltheconsumersonwhosebehalforforwhosebenefitthecomplaintisinstitutedand
thetotalcompensation,ifany,claimedinrespectofallsuchconsumersexceedsRs.1.00crore.Thevalueofthegoodspurchasedortheservices
hiredandavailedofbyanindividualconsumerorthesize,ordateofbooking/allotment/purchaseoftheflatwouldbewhollyirrelevantinsucha
complaintwherethecomplaintrelatestothesale/allotmentofseveralflats/plotsinthesameproject/building.

Referencedated11.8.2016

IssueNo.(i)
Itisthevalueofthegoodsorservices,asthecasemaybe,andnotthevalueorcostofremovingthedeficiencyintheservicewhichistobe
consideredforthepurposeofdeterminingthepecuniaryjurisdiction.

IssueNo.(ii)

TheinteresthastobetakenintoaccountforthepurposeofdeterminingthepecuniaryjurisdictionofaConsumerForum.

IssueNo.(iii)

Theconsiderationpaidoragreedtobepaidbytheconsumeratthetimeofpurchasingthegoodsorhiringoravailingoftheservices,asthe
casemaybe,istobeconsidered,alongwiththecompensation,ifany,claimedinthecomplaint,todeterminethepecuniaryjurisdictionofa
ConsumerForum.

IssueNo.(iv)

InacomplaintinstitutedunderSection12(1)(c)oftheConsumerProtectionAct,thepecuniaryjurisdictionistobedeterminedonthebasisof
aggregateofthevalueofthegoodspurchasedortheserviceshiredoravailedbyalltheconsumersonwhosebehalforforwhosebenefitthe
complaintisinstitutedandthetotalcompensationclaimedinrespectofsuchconsumers.

IssueNo.(v)&(vi)

AcomplaintunderSection12(1)(c)oftheConsumerProtectionActcanbeinstitutedonlybyoneormoreconsumers,asdefinedinSection
2(1)(d)oftheConsumerProtectionAct.Therefore,agroupofCooperativesocieties,Firms,AssociationorotherSocietycannotfilesucha
complaintunlesssuchsocietyetc.itselfisaconsumerasdefinedintheaforesaidprovision.

IssueNo.(vii)

MorethanonecomplaintsunderSection12(1)(c)oftheConsumerProtectionActarenotmaintainableonbehalfoforforthebenefitof
consumershavingthesameinteresti.e.acommongrievanceandseekingthesame/identicalagainstthesameperson.Incasemorethanonesuch
complaintshavebeeninstituted,itisonlythecomplaintinstitutedfirstunderSection12(1)(c)oftheConsumerProtectionAct,withtherequisite
permissionoftheConsumerForum,whichcancontinueandtheremainingcomplaintsfiledunderSection12(1)(c)oftheConsumerProtectionAct
areliabletobedismissedwithlibertytojoininthecomplaintinstitutedfirstwiththerequisitepermissionoftheConsumerForum.

TheindividualcomplaintsinstitutedbeforegrantoftherequisitepermissionunderSection12(1)(c)oftheConsumerProtectionActcan
continuedespitegrantofthesaidpermissionbutitwouldbeopentosuchcomplainantstowithdrawtheirindividualcomplaintsandjoinaspartiesto
thecomplaintinstitutedinarepresentativecharacter.However,oncetherequisitepermissionunderSection12(1)(c)oftheConsumerProtectionAct
isgranted,anindividualcomplaint,expressingthesamegrievancewillnotbemaintainableandtheonlyremedyopentoaconsumerhavingthesame
grievanceistojoinasapartytothecomplaintinstitutedinarepresentativecharacter.

16.Beforepartingwiththereferences,wewouldliketoemphasisethatconsideringthebindingeffectofadecisionrenderedinacomplaintunder
Section12(1)(c)oftheConsumerProtectionAct,onalltheconsumers,onwhosebehalforforwhosebenefitsuchacomplaintisfiled,evenifthey
chosenottojoinasapartytothecomplaint,itisnecessarytoexerciseduecareandcautionwhileconsideringsuchacomplaintevenattheinitial
stageandtogranttherequisitepermission,onlywherethecomplaintfulfilsalltherequisiteconditionsintermsofSection12(1)(c)oftheConsumer
ProtectionActreadwithOrderIRule8oftheCodeofCivilProcedureasinterpretedinthisreference.ItwouldalsobenecessaryfortheBenchto
eithergiveindividualnoticesoranadequatepublicnoticeoftheinstitutionofthecomplainttoallthepersonsonwhosebehalforforwhosebenefit
thecomplaintisinstituted.Suchanoticeshoulddiscloseinteralia(i)thesubjectmatterofthecomplaintincludingtheparticularsoftheprojectif
thecomplaintrelatestoahousingproject/scheme,(ii)theclassofpersonsonwhosebehalforforwhosebenefitthecomplaintisfiled,(iii)the
commongrievancesoughttogetredressedthroughtheclassaction,(iv)theallegeddeficiencyintheservicesand(v)thereliefsclaimedinthe
complaint.

Itwillalsobenecessarytoheartheoppositeparty,beforetakingafinalviewonthegrantorotherwiseofthepermissionrequiredintermsof
Section12(1)(c)oftheConsumerProtectionAct.

17.TheComplaintandtheAppeals,inwhichreferencesweremade,belistedbeforetheappropriateBenches,forfurtherproceedings,inthelight
oftheanswertothereference.

...

......................J
D.K.JAIN
PRESIDENT
......................J
V.K.JAIN
MEMBER
......................
DR.B.C.GUPTA
MEMBER