Analysis of Representative Complaints in Consumer Protection Cases

Explore the nuances of legal analysis in the context of representative complaints in consumer protection cases. This summary sheds light on the court’s interpretation of laws governing class actions and the importance of demonstrating common interests among complainants. Stay tuned for a comprehensive analysis of key legal principles guiding consumer rights and class action suits.

Arguments

A group of 91 purchasers of 51 apartments in a residential complex filed a consumer complaint seeking permission to represent over 1000 purchasers in a class action.
The application for permission was made under Section 35(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, similar to a civil court’s Order I Rule 8 for class actions.
The builder objected to the application, but the National Commission granted permission citing relevant court decisions.
Learned counsel for the respondents argue that there is no commonality of interest or grievance among the apartment owners who have filed complaints.
They reference the decisions in Chairman, Tamil Nadu Housing Board vs. T.N. Ganapathy and Vikrant Singh Malik & Ors. vs. Supertech Limited & Ors. to support their stance.
The respondents claim to have the same interest as all buyers of the 1134 apartments, a prerequisite for their application under Section 35(1)(c).
The reliefs sought by the respondents in their consumer complaint are for the benefit of all purchasers in the residential complex.
The appellant’s counsel argues that only a small percentage of apartment owners have filed complaints and hence cannot represent the larger group.
The interpretation of Order I Rule 8 is highlighted to emphasize the facilitation of decisions involving a large number of interested parties.
The timeline of the project’s launch in 2013 is mentioned in the context of the appeal against the Order.

Also Read: Undisclosed Conviction for Dharna Under Police Act Leads to Overturned Election

Analysis

Section 35(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 allows one or more consumers to file a complaint on behalf of or for the benefit of all consumers having the same interest.
The provision in Section 35(1)(c) allows for complaints to be filed either ‘on behalf of’ or ‘for the benefit of’ consumers with the same interest.
Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 permits plaintiffs to sue or defend in a representative capacity and also allows people to be sued and defended in a representative capacity.
The Order I Rule 8 operates both ways, allowing one or more persons with the same interest to sue or be sued on behalf of or for the benefit of others.
The rule specifies the procedure for notifying all interested parties either by personal service or public advertisement.
It also allows for any person whose suit is instituted on their behalf to apply to be made a party to the suit.
The court may substitute a person in a suit if the original person does not proceed with due diligence.
A decree passed in a suit under this rule is binding on all persons on whose behalf the suit is instituted.
Section 35(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 requires sameness of interest for a complaint to be filed on behalf of numerous consumers.
The complaint filed by the respondents involves 386 apartments in Amber block, of which none of the owners have joined in the filing.
The delay compensation offered by the builder and accepted or rejected by buyers does not establish sameness of interest.
The complaint focuses on the delay in possession as the primary ground for seeking compensation.
The complaint should have included sufficient averments to show sameness of interest among all buyers in the project.
The National Commission’s decision to permit a representative complaint under Section 35(1)(c) was deemed incorrect in this case.
The complaint, although flawed in its representation, should not be dismissed entirely due to the unique circumstances.
The importance of distinguishing between joint complaints and representative complaints is highlighted.
The calculation of delay compensation and the issue of possession are central in determining the grievances of the buyers.
The judgment emphasizes the need for clarity and specificity in pleadings to establish sameness of interest among buyers.
The definition of the word ‘complainant’ under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is discussed.
Provisions of Section 35(1) and Section 38(11) relating to the filing of complaints by consumers are highlighted.
It is clarified that Order I Rule 8 CPC need not always apply when multiple consumers have the same interest, and they can file joint complaints.
Judicial decisions in Vikrant Singh Malik and Ors. vs. Supertech Limited and Ors. are referenced to support the interpretation of filing joint complaints by multiple consumers with common interests.
The case of Tamil Nadu Housing Board is distinguished on the grounds of different factual and legal circumstances.
The case of Rameshwar Prasad Shrivastava & Ors. vs. Dwarkadhis Projects Private Limited & Ors. is discussed in the context of group complaints under Section 35(1)(c) of the Act.
Reference is made to the interpretation of the object of Section 12(1)(c) of the 1986 Act in Anjum Hussain and Ors. vs. Intellicity Business Park Private Limited and Ors.
Persons can implead themselves as parties to a complaint if their grievance aligns with the grievance presented by the respondents.
The complaint filed by the respondents will be considered a joint complaint only on behalf of the respondents and not on behalf of all flat owners.
The appeal is allowed and the National Commission’s order is modified accordingly.