9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 754X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terest or common grievance. What is required is sameness of interest. It was 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. - 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 appellant no.1 had booked an office space admeasuring abo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 the complaint, no evidence can even be led to prove that not only the complainants but all the allottees of the shops/commercial units had booked the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s 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 agreed to be provided, may be filed with a District Forum, by (a) the consumer to whom such goods are sold or delivered or agreed to be sold or delivered or such service provided or agreed to be provided; (b) any recognised consumers association whether the consumer to whom the goods sold or delivered or service provided or agreed to be provided is a member of such association or not; (c) one or more consumers, where there are numerous consume ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 being brought must have the same interest. In other words either the interest must be common or they must have a common grievance which they seek to get redressed. In Kodia Goundar v. Velandi Goundar (ILR 1955 Mad 339: AIR 1955 Mad 281) a Full Bench of the Madras High Court observed that on the plain language of Order I Rule 8, the principal requirement to bring a suit within that rule is the sameness of interest of the numerous persons on whose behalf or for whose benefit the suit is instituted. The court, while considering whether leave under the rule should be granted or not, should examine whether there is sufficient community of interest to justi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 relied upon the decision of this Court in T.N. Housing Board1. Relevant portion of the decision of the National Commission was :- 10. Since by virtue of Section 13(6) of the Consumer Protection Act, the provisions of the Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC apply to the consumer complaints filed by one or more consumers where there are numerous consumers having the same interest, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tamil Nadu Housing Board (supra) would squarely apply, while answering the reference. The purpose of giving a statutory recognition to such a complaint being to avoid the multiplicity of litigation, the effort should be to give an interpretation which would sub serve the said objective, by reducing the increasing inflow of the consumer complaints to the Consumer Forums. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 not have been the Legislative intent. The term 'persons so interested' and 'persons having the same interest' used in Section 12(1)(c) mean, the persons having a common grievance against the same service provider. The use of the words 'all consumers so interested' and on behalf of or for the benefit of all consumers so interested , in Section 12(1) (c) leaves no doubt that such a complaint must necessarily be filed on behalf of or for the benefit of all the persons having a common grievance, seeking a common relief and consequently having a community of interest against the same service provider. 14. It was 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 Commissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
