9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 2007X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 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. - Uday Umesh Lalit And R. Subhash Reddy, JJ. For the Appellant : Ms. Priyanjali Singh, AOR. For the Respondent : Mr. Ajay Kumar Talesara, AOR. JUDGMENT UDAY UMESH LALIT, J. 1. These appeals under Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the Act ) are directed against the judgments and orders dated 13.02.2018 and 08.08.2018 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi ( the National Commission for short) dismissing Consumer Case Nos. 250 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o far by the apartment buyers and be directed to be paid immediately or at the time of possession to be calculated on the basis explained in the complaint. 2. Declare that the demand raised by the Respondent No. 1 for the enhanced/extra EDC by including interest thereon as null and void. Direct the Respondent No. 1 to provide details of the initial EDC and EDC Charge and Calculations thereof in terms of the latest directive/memo issued by the official Respondents including the status of its payment by the Builder to the DGTCP Haryana including their payments by the Respondent No. 1 to the DGTCP Haryana. Direct the builder to raise fresh/rectified demand bills/letter towards EDC Charges after addressing the stated issues-supra. Direct the adjustment of the extra amounts paid by some of the Buyers against the EDC with interest @ 24% thereon against the fresh computations/bills raised as above. Direct the Respondent No. 1 to maintain transparency in the matter of payment of EDC Charges to the Authorities by displaying the status on their Website so as to restore Buyer Confidence. 3. Direct the Respondent No. 1 to refund the open stilt car parking charges in the sum of Rs. 75,000/- to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpleted. After about 20 hearings in the matter, by order dated 25.02.2016 the case was fixed for final arguments. 5. On 07.10.2016 a Bench of three Members of the National Commission delivered judgment in Ambrish Kumar Shukla and others v. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. [I (2017)CPJ1 (NC)] while answering reference made to the larger Bench of the National Commission. One of the points which was referred to the larger Bench of the National Commission was as under: (i) Whether a complaint under Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act filed on behalf of or for the benefit of only some of the numerous consumers having a common interest or a common grievance is maintainable or it must necessarily be filed on behalf of or for the benefit of all the consumers having a common interest or a common grievance against same person(s) 6. After considering the relevant provisions of the Act namely Section 2(1)(b) defining the expression complainant , Section 12(1) and Section 13(6) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ( The Act , for short) as well as the provisions of Order I Rule 8 of Code of Civil Procedure ( CPC , for short) and a decision of this Court in The Chairman, Tamil Nadu H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act. 5. Ms. Priyanjali Singh, Advocate for the Complainants at the time of arguments in this case, on instructions, stated that the Complainants did not wish to press I.A.No.12680 of 2017 seeking amendment of the Complaint and requested the Complaint should be dealt with as filed earlier. Hence, I.A.No.12680 of 2017 was dismissed as not pressed. 8. It was observed that since there was no application under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act, in view of the decision rendered by larger Bench of the National Commission in Ambrish Kumar (supra), the complaint in the instant case was not maintainable. The National Commission thus by its order dated 13.02.2018 dismissed the aforesaid Consumer Case No. 250 of 2013 as not being maintainable. Similarly, by order dated 08.08.2018 the National Commission dismissed Complaint Case No. 43 of 2014 preferred by 4 buyers in respect of same project of the first respondent as not being maintainable. 9. These appeals thus question the correctness of the decisions of the National Commission and raise issues concerning maintainability of the complaints. At this stage we may extract the relevant provisions of the Act. Section 2(1) In this Act, unless the con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erlying objectives of the Act and to make the redressal mechanism easy, cost effective and efficacious. She further submitted that in cases having large number of apartment holders, if only some of them approach the consumer forum, their grievance redressal ought not to be forced to go through the mechanics of Section 13(6) of the Act read with the provisions of Order 1 Rule 8 CPC. According to her any such insistence would render the remedy exorbitant as cost required for newspaper publication itself would be quite prohibitive. On the other hand, Mr. Manoharan, learned Advocate for the first respondent, submitted that the view taken by the Commission in Ambrish Kumar (supra) was correctly and rightly applied by the Commission in the present case. He further submitted that such view was the only possible view, going by the text of the relevant provisions. 11. 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 gov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t admit of any other interpretation. It was laid down by this Court in Babu Manmohan Das Shah ors. v. Bishun Das [(1967) 1 SCR 836 at page-839] as:- The ordinary rule of construction is that a provision of a statute must be construed in accordance with the language used therein unless there are compelling reasons, such as, where a literal construction would reduce the provision to absurdity or prevent the manifest intention of the legislature from being carried out. If we accept the submission of the appellants, the category of persons referred to in Section 13(6) of the Act, with the aid of requisite permission in terms of Order I Rule 8 of the CPC could maintain a class action which may bind similarly placed consumers but those referred to in Section 12(1)(c) would be a different category who would not be bound by the provisions of Order I Rule 8 of CPC. In essence a separate category of persons as consumer/consumers would be entitled to maintain an action under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act. In our considered view that certainly is not the intent. If we accept the submission, we would be going against the express mandate of the statute. All that such interpretation would help achi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
