2021 (9) TMI 1157 - SC - Indian Laws

Liability to pay the amount of certain cheques signed by him along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. - jurisdiction of the NCDRC - complainant in terms of Section 2(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - HELD THAT - The complainant before the NCDRC is neither a voluntary consumer association registered under the Companies Act, 1956 nor under any other law for the time being in force. The complaint is maintainable on behalf of the numerous consumers having the same interest in terms of clause (iv) of Section 2(1)(b) of the Act - A complaint on behalf of one or two consumers having same interest can be filed only with the permission of the forum of which the jurisdiction is invoked. Since the complainant is neither a voluntary consumer association nor a registered body, nor the permission of the appropriate forum has been sought, therefore, the complaint itself was not maintainable. Since the opposite party is a sole proprietorship consultancy of Mr. I.J. Aneja, therefore, the liability of payment of investments would be that of Mr. I.J. Aneja and not of the employees who were engaged by Mr. Aneja at different places such as Nehru Place, NOIDA and Ghaziabad - Since, the complaint itself was not maintainable and the appellant is an employee engaged by the sole proprietorship consultancy, there cannot be any personal liability which can be inflicted upon the appellant by virtue of only being an employee of a sole proprietorship. The order passed by the NCDRC is set aside and the complaint is dismissed - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. Liability of an employee in a sole proprietorship consultancy for payment of investments.

Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the NCDRC:
The appellant challenged an order by the NCDRC holding him liable for certain cheques. The appellant contended that the Investor Forum Aneja Group did not have the right to approach the NCDRC as per the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Act defines a complainant as a consumer, voluntary consumer association, or one or more consumers with the permission of the District Forum. The appellant argued that the complainant did not fall under any of these categories, making the complaint not maintainable. The court agreed, emphasizing that a complaint on behalf of consumers with the same interest requires permission from the appropriate forum, which was not obtained in this case. Therefore, the complaint was deemed not maintainable, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

2. Liability of an Employee in a Sole Proprietorship Consultancy:
The appellant further argued that since the consultancy in question was a sole proprietorship of Mr. I.J. Aneja, the liability for investments rested with Mr. Aneja and not the employees. As the appellant was an employee of the sole proprietorship consultancy, it was contended that no personal liability could be imposed solely based on employment status. The court, after finding the complaint not maintainable due to jurisdictional issues, allowed the appeal, set aside the NCDRC's order, and dismissed the complaint. The court acknowledged the efforts of the assisting counsel and ordered the refund of the amount deposited by the appellant along with accrued interest.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing the importance of proper jurisdiction under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and clarifying the limited liability of an employee in a sole proprietorship consultancy. The judgment highlights the necessity of meeting legal requirements for filing complaints and the significance of accurate interpretation of legal definitions in consumer dispute cases.