SUBHECHHA WELFARE SOCIETY versus M/S. EARTH INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. on 14 February 2020

1. These civil appeals are filed by the complainant in ConsumerComplaint Nos.1196 and 1197 of 2016, aggrieved by the order datedE06.12.2016 and the order dated 05.01.2017 in R.A.Nos.312 and 313 of2016 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission(for short, ‘NCDRC’), New Delhi.

2. The appellant-complainant is a registered Welfare Society.Consumer Complaint No.1196 of 2016 has been filed by the complainantFon behalf of 8 allottees and Consumer Complaint No.1197 of 2016 hasbeen filed by the complainant on behalf of 12 allottees with the allegationsthat buyers booked units with the opposite party on different dates andinspite of making major payment, possession has not been delivered tothem. In the aforesaid complaint directions are sought against the oppositeparty to hand over possession of units in all respects or in the alternativeGto provide other flat of identical size or to refund the amount depositedalong with interest and compensation.

3. It is the case of the appellant that the complainant being asociety registered under Haryana Registration and Regulation Act hasfiled complaint on behalf of allottees, under Section 12(1)(b) of theHConsumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’).

4. Both the complaints filed by the appellant-complainant aredismissed vide impugned order dated 06.12.2016 on the ground thatrecognised consumer association can file complaint on behalf of singleconsumer only, but cannot file complaint on behalf of several consumersin one complaint. Review applications preferred against the dismissal ofthe complaints have also been dismissed vide order dated 05.01.2017which order is also under challenge.

5. We have heard Sri Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel appearingfor the appellant. Inspite of service of notice, there is no appearance onbehalf of the respondent.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted thatthe reasoning assigned by the NCDRC for dismissing the complaints asnot maintainable, is erroneous as much as there is no restriction on thevoluntary registered association to file complaint on behalf of singleconsumer only. It is submitted that the restriction as recorded in theimpugned order will defeat the very purpose of registering an association.Learned counsel has also brought to our notice an order of the NCDRCin Consumer Complaint No.816 of 2016 wherein the Tribunal has recordeda finding that, Section 12(1)(b) of the Act does not preclude the recognisedconsumer association from filing a composite complaint on behalf ofmore than one consumers, having a similar grievance against the sellerof the goods or the provider of services, as the case may be. Further, itis submitted that the said order is affirmed by this Court as the CivilAppeal Nos.10882 of 2016 etc. titled M/s. Amrapali Sapphire DeveloperPvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Amrapali Sapphire Flat Buyers Welfare Associationpreferred against the orders passed by the NCDRC are dismissed byorder dated 21.02.2017.

7. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counselfor the appellant and on perusal of the impugned order and other materialplaced on record, we are of the view that the finding of the NCDRCthat recognised consumer association can file complaint on behalf of asingle consumer, but cannot file complaint on behalf of several consumersin one complaint, is erroneous and there is no legal basis for that. Froma reading of Section 12(1)(b) of the Act read with Explanation to Section12 it is clear that voluntary registered association can file a complaint onbehalf of its members to espouse their grievances. There is nothing inthe aforesaid provision of the Act which would restrict its application tothe complaint pertaining to an individual complainant. If a recognised AB

CD

E

F

G

H

Aconsumer association is made to file multiple complaints in respect ofseveral consumers having a similar cause of action, that would defeatthe very purpose of registration of a society or association and it wouldresult only in multiplicity of proceedings without serving any usefulpurpose.

B8. We are in agreement with the view taken by the NCDRC ininterpreting the provisions of Section 12(1)(b) of the Act in order dated30[th] August 2016 in Consumer Complaint No.816 of 2016 passed in thecase of Amrapali Sapphire Flat Buyers Welfare Association etc. v.Amrapali Sapphire Developers Pvt. Ltd. etc. which is also affirmed bythis Court by virtue of dismissal of Civil Appeal Nos.10882 of 2016 etc.Cvide order dated 21.02.2017.

9. For the aforesaid reasons, these civil appeals are allowed andthe impugned common order dated 06.12.2016 passed in ConsumerComplaint No.1196 and 1197 of 2016 and the orders dated 05.01.2017passed in R.A. Nos.312 and 313 of 2016 are set aside. The matter isDremitted back to the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,New Delhi with a direction to consider the complaints on merits andpass appropriate orders. It is made clear that the observations made inthis order are only for the purpose of disposal of these appeals whichare directed against the order of the NCDRC dismissing the complaintsEin limine on the ground of maintainability. It is open for the Commissionto consider the grievance(s) raised in the complaints on its own merits.

Devika Gujral

Appeals allowed and matter remitted to NCDRC.

F

G

H