Inter alia alleging that the respondent has failed in its obligation to construct and complete the promised flats within the timeline agreed upon, with its failure to pay compensation for the delay caused at its instance, and questioning the additional demands raised, the appellant approached the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the National Commission’) by filing a Consumer Complaint No 3753 of 2017 initially on behalf of 54 allottees, and thereafter, a few others.
Notwithstanding the above, a complaint was filed by the respondent with the District Registrar of Societies, inter alia alleging that the aims and objectives enunciated in the byelaws of the appellant association were not in conformity with the HRRS Act. No 34595 of 2019, wherein the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, at Chandigarh, vide its order dated 27.11.2019 passed an order directing the Registrar General, Haryana to decide the interim applications expeditiously.
Under the aforesaid factual backdrop, the appellant filed an application before the National Commission to place on record the amended byelaws with the order of stay granted by the Registrar General, Haryana seeking a consequential prayer for the revival of the proceedings. Before the National Commission, an additional affidavit was filed by the respondent in the review application, placing reliance upon the order dated 07.09.2021 of the Registrar General, Haryana which is pending adjudication before the High Court.
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the respondent is bent upon preventing the appellant from seeking recourse to legal remedy.
The Consumer Protection Act, 1986; 68 of 1986 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1986 Act”) and the Consumer Protection Act, 2019; 35 of 2019 (hereinafter referred to as “the 2019 Act”) have got a laudable objective.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/acquittal-in-kidnapping-and-abduction-case-courts-legal-analysis/
Sub-section (1) (c) to Section 12 of the 1986 Act alone has to be read with sub-section (6) of Section 13 of the 1986 Act which contemplates the procedure on admission of a complaint.
( supra ), the members of the appellant, who had filed affidavits, would fall under Section 12(1)(a) of the 1986 Act, and therefore, there is no need to go into the issue as to whether the case would come under Section 12(1)(b) of the 1986 Act, for the good reason that the definition of ‘complainant’ under Section 2(b)(i) of the 1986 Act, will include multiple consumers. Ltd in Consumer Complaint
No 48 of 2021 etc., dated 06.03.2023, took note of the aforesaid decision on both counts, namely, the right of several complainants having same and similar interest in filing a single complaint and computation of pecuniary jurisdiction. In holding so, the National Commission took note of its earlier decision in Ambrish Kumar Shukla v.
We further note that even after five years the appellant is unable to proceed, and the cases have not progressed.
Case Title: ALPHA G184 OWNERS ASSOCIATION Vs. M/S MAGNUM INTERNATIONAL TRADING COMPANY PVT. LTD. (2023 INSC 536)
Case Number: C.A. No.-004718 / 2022
