TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 754X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... observed by this Court in T.N. Housing Board1 that the provision must receive an interpretation which would subserve the object for its enactment. It is in this light that the Full Bench of the National Commission held that oneness of the interest is akin to a common grievance against the same person - However, the National Commission in the instant case, completely lost sight of the principles so clearly laid down in the decisions referred to above. In our view, the approach in the instant case was totally erroneous. The application preferred by the appellants under Section 12(v)(o) of the Act is held to be maintainable - Appeal allowed. - CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1676 OF 2019 - - - Dated:- 10-5-2019 - Arun Mishra And Uday Umesh Lalit, JJ. JUDGMENT Uday Umesh Lalit, J. 1. This appeal under Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 10.10.2018 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi ( the National Commission , for short) in Consumer Case No.2241 of 2018 preferred by the appellants. 2. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rcial purpose. 2. Since the scope of the complaint is not restrict only to the complainants and encompasses all the allottees of the shops/commercial units, as is specifically stated in the complaint and is also evident from the prayers made in the compliant, seeking direction to the opposite party to refund the amount deposited by each complainant as well as other allottees along with interest and compensation, it would be maintainable as a class action only if it is alleged and shown that all the allottees of the shops/commercial units in the above referred project had booked the same solely for the purpose of the earning their livelihood by way of self-employment, meaning thereby that all the allottees intend to work themselves in these shops/commercial units and the occupation of the said units by them has to be for the purpose of earning their livelihood. A careful perusal of the complaint would show that it is not even alleged that all the allottees of the commercial units/shops in the above referred project had booked the said shops/units solely for the purpose of the earning their livelihood by way of self-employment. In the absence of such an averment in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or (ii) hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who [hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payments, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first-mentioned person; but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose; Explanation : For the purposes of this clause commercial purpose does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood, and services availed by him by means of self-employment; 9. Section 12 of the Act states: 12. Manner in which complaint shall be made (1) A complaint in relation to any goods sold or delivered or agreed to be sold or delivered or any service provided or agre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lity of the suit in a representative capacity under Order I, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it has been contended that since the injury complained of is in regard to demand of money and that too by a separate demand against each of the allottees, giving rise to different causes of action, Rule 1 has no application. The learned counsel proceeded to say that it is not known whether each of the allottees in Ashok Nagar had been even served with an additional demand before the suit was filed; and further emphasised that those who had been so served are interested in defeating only the demand individually referable to each of them. Each one of them is not interested in what happens to the others. It is, therefore, suggested that only such of the allottees who have already been served with additional demands are entitled to maintain an action in court, and they also should do it by filing separate suits. We do not find any merit in the argument. The provisions of Order I of Rule 8 have been included in the Code in the public interest so as to avoid multiplicity of litigation. The condition necessary for application of the provisions is that the persons on whose behalf the suit is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alf of all of them. The rule has created a doubt as to whether the party representing others should have the same cause of action as the persons represented by him. The rule is being substituted by a new rule and an explanation is being added to clarify that such persons need not have the same cause of action. There is, therefore, no doubt that the persons who may be represented in a suit under Order I, Rule 8 need not have the same cause of action. The trial court in the present case was right in permitting the respondent to sue on behalf of all the allottees of Ashok Nagar. We, therefore, do not find any merit in this appeal which is dismissed with costs. Before closing, however, we would like to point out that the plaintiff has represented only those in the low income group in Ashok Nagar who will be governed by this judgment, and nothing that has been said or decided in this case is applicable to any other group or colony. 13. Very same issue was dealt with by Full Bench of the National Commission in Ambrish Kumar Shukla and Ors. vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Consumer Case No.97 of 2016, decided on 07.10.2016. The National Commission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... having a common grievance against the same developer/builder, and identical relief is sought for all such consumers. The primary object behind permitting a class action such as a complaint under Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act being to facilitate the 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 the benefit of all the persons having such a community of interest. A complaint on behalf of only some of them therefore will not be maintainable. If for instance, 100 flat buyers/plot buyers in a project have a common grievance against the Builder/Developer and a complaint under Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act is filed on behalf of or for the benefit of say 10 of them, the primary purpose behind permitting a class action will not be achieved, since the remaining 90 aggrieved persons will be compelled either to file individual complaints or to file complaints on behalf of or for the benefit of the different group of purchasers in the same project. This, in our view, could n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
