2018 (12) TMI 2007 - SC - Indian Laws

Maintainability of complaints filed under Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, by a group of consumers without the requisite permission - interpretation and application of Section 2(1)(b), Section 12(1)(c), and Section 13(6) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, in conjunction with Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - HELD THAT - A closer look at Section 2(1)(b) would show that under sub-clause (i) it is the consumer himself, as aggrieved person who could be the Complainant and maintain an action. Under sub-clause (ii), a voluntary organization or association may espouse the cause of such aggrieved person. Under sub- clause (iii) either the central government or the state government may take-up the matter as complainant. The language used and the text in Section 13(6) is clear that wherever a complaint is filed by a complainant in the category referred to in Section 2(1)(b)(iv), the provisions of Order 1 Rule 8 CPC shall apply with the modification that reference to suit or decree shall be construed as reference to a complaint or order of the District Forum. The expression with the permission of the District Forum as appearing in Section 12(1)(c) must be read along with Section 13(6) which provides the context and effect to said expression. Sections 12(1)(c) and 13(6) are not independent but are to be read together and they form part of the same machinery. Conclusion - The National Commission, in the present case, was therefore justified in holding Consumer Case Nos. 250 of 2013 and 43 of 2014 to be not maintainable. Appeal disposed off.

Summary

```html

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The legal judgment primarily addresses the following issues:

• Whether the complaints filed under Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, by a group of consumers without the requisite permission, are maintainable.
• The interpretation and application of Section 2(1)(b), Section 12(1)(c), and Section 13(6) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, in conjunction with Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).
• The implications of the decision in Ambrish Kumar Shukla and others v. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. on the maintainability of consumer complaints filed by a subset of consumers.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Maintainability of Complaints under Section 12(1)(c)

• Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The judgment examines Section 2(1)(b), Section 12(1)(c), and Section 13(6) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alongside Order I Rule 8 CPC. The precedent set by the larger bench of the National Commission in Ambrish Kumar Shukla is pivotal.
• Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court emphasized that for a complaint to be maintainable under Section 12(1)(c), it must be filed with the permission of the District Forum and should represent all consumers with a common interest. The Court highlighted the necessity of adhering to Order I Rule 8 CPC, which mandates a notice to all interested parties.
• Key Evidence and Findings: The judgment noted that the complainants did not seek the necessary permission under Section 12(1)(c) for a class action, thus failing to comply with procedural requirements.
• Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied the statutory requirements and found the complaints non-maintainable due to the absence of permission and the failure to represent all consumers with a common grievance.
• Treatment of Competing Arguments: The appellants argued for a broad interpretation of the statute to facilitate consumer redressal, while the respondents and the Court adhered to a literal interpretation, emphasizing statutory compliance.
• Conclusions: The Court concluded that the complaints were not maintainable as they did not comply with the statutory requirements for a class action under the Consumer Protection Act.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

• Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: The Court stated, "The primary object behind permitting a class action such 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."
• Core Principles Established: The judgment reinforced the principle that consumer complaints under Section 12(1)(c) must represent all consumers with a common interest and comply with procedural requirements, including seeking permission from the District Forum.
• Final Determinations on Each Issue: The Court upheld the National Commission's decision, declaring the complaints non-maintainable. It allowed the appellants to approach the State Commission, continuing from the stage reached before the National Commission.

```