ALPHA G184 OWNERS ASSOCIATION versus MAGNUM INTERNATIONAL TRADING COMPANY PVT. LTD. on 15 May 2023

1. The appellant is an association formed by the allottees, registeredGunder Section 6 of the Haryana Registration and Regulation of SocietiesAct, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as “the HRRS Act”) vide certificatedated 01.11.2017. The respondent herein is a builder tasked with thedevelopment of a housing project. Inter alia alleging that the respondenthas failed in its obligation to construct and complete the promised flatswithin the timeline agreed upon, with its failure to pay compensation forH

the delay caused at its instance, and questioning the additional demandsraised, the appellant approached the National Consumer DisputesRedressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the NationalCommission’) by filing a Consumer Complaint No. 3753 of 2017 initiallyon behalf of 54 allottees, and thereafter, a few others. Accordingly,complaints have been filed in Consumer Complaint No(s). 3751, 3752,3753 & 3754 of 2017, and 407 of 2018. These complaints are filed bythe appellant on behalf of the named allottees.

2. Consequent to the interim order dated 08.01.2018 passed inConsumer Complaint No. 3753 of 2017, pleadings were completedfollowed by affidavits filed by the appellant along with the individualaffidavits of the allottees. At that stage, the respondent filed a writ petitionbeing W.P. (C) of 3221 of 2018 before the High Court of Delhi, whichwas stayed by this Court vide order dated 20.08.2018 in S.L.P. (C) No(s).23021-23022 of 2018.

3. Notwithstanding the above, a complaint was filed by therespondent with the District Registrar of Societies, inter alia allegingthat the aims and objectives enunciated in the byelaws of the appellantassociation were not in conformity with the HRRS Act. The DistrictRegistrar, Gurugram referred the matter to the State Registrar, Haryanaby the order dated 03.10.2018.

4. The State Registrar, Haryana directed the appellant to amendits byelaws within six months indicating that any failure to comply wouldresult in cancellation of the registration granted already. Aggrieved, theappellant filed an appeal before the Registrar General, Haryana. Asnothing transpired on ground qua the proceedings before the RegistrarGeneral, Haryana and without prejudice to its contentions, the appellantdid make an amendment which was duly registered by the DistrictRegistrar, Gurugram on 08.11.2019.

5. The complaint was taken up by the National Commission forhearing on 13.11.2019. Having been informed of the order of the StateRegistrar dated 12.02.2019, the proceedings were adjourned sine die,awaiting the outcome of the appeal before the Registrar General,Haryana.

6. The appellant submitted an application to the Registrar General,Haryana in the pending Appeal No. 320 of 2019 to place on record the AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aamended byelaws while reiterating the request for grant of stay. A writpetition was also filed by appellant being C.W.P. No. 34595 of 2019,wherein the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, at Chandigarh, vide itsorder dated 27.11.2019 passed an order directing the Registrar General,Haryana to decide the interim applications expeditiously.

B

B7. Before the Registrar General, Haryana the respondent raiseda contention placing reliance upon a copy of the notice dated 04.10.2019,by which the Department expressed its intention to cancel the registration.Accordingly, the Registrar General, Haryana passed an order restrainingany cancellation of registration.C

8. Under the aforesaid factual backdrop, the appellant filed anapplication before the National Commission to place on record theamended byelaws with the order of stay granted by the Registrar General,Haryana seeking a consequential prayer for the revival of theproceedings. The interlocutory application was allowed by taking onDrecord the documents filed. The aforesaid order was sought to be recalledby the respondent through a review application in R.A. No. 52 of 2020.

9. Subsequently, the District Registrar, Gurugram by an order dated17.06.2020 put on hold the amendments, as certified earlier, on the premisethat the period of six months granted got expired. The Registrar General,EHaryana in turn dismissed the Appeal No. 320 of 2019, finding no errorin the order of the State Registrar, Haryana, though the appellant’sregistration was not cancelled.

10. The orders passed by the State Registrar and the RegistrarGeneral, Haryana were challenged before the High Court of Punjab &FHaryana, at Chandigarh, in C.W.P. No. 19666 of 2021 together with anapplication for stay. Though, the matter is still pending adjudication thereis no interim order as of now.

11. Before the National Commission, an additional affidavit wasfiled by the respondent in the review application, placing reliance uponGthe order dated 07.09.2021 of the Registrar General, Haryana which ispending adjudication before the High Court. Similarly, the appellant alsofiled an application bringing to the notice of the National Commission,the pendency of the writ petition and the stay application. By the impugnedorders, all the matters along with the interlocutory applications wereadjourned awaiting appropriate orders in the writ petition. Seeking to setH

aside the aforesaid orders passed by the National Commission, the presentappeals are filed before us.

SUBMISSIONS

12. Heard Shri Narendra Hooda, learned senior counsel, on behalfof the appellant, and Shri Debesh Panda, learned counsel, on behalf ofthe respondent.

13. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted thatthe respondent is bent upon preventing the appellant from seekingrecourse to legal remedy. Complaints filed in the year 2017 are yet to beadjudicated on merits. The pendency of the writ petition has got noconnection with the proceedings before the National Commission. It isnot as if the interest of the public in general is sought to be espoused asagainst the members of the appellant. In any case, affidavits havingbeen filed by the individual allottees, the National Commission has erredin adjourning the matters sine die.

14. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted thatthere is an inconsistency in the contentions raised by the appellant. If theregistration of the appellant is non-existent, the very complaint wouldbecome not maintainable. Even assuming that an individual complaintcould be taken up, the forum would be that of a District ConsumerDisputes Redressal Commission. As the Hon’ble High Court has notgranted any stay of the orders passed by the State Registrar and theRegistrar General, there is no infirmity in the impugned orders.

DISCUSSION

15. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986; 68 of 1986 (hereinafterreferred to as “the 1986 Act”) and the Consumer Protection Act, 2019;35 of 2019 (hereinafter referred to as “the 2019 Act”) have got a laudableobjective. The 2019 Act facilitates the consumers to approach the forumsby providing a very flexible procedure. It is meant to encourageconsumerism in the country. Any technical approach in construing theprovisions against the consumer would go against the very objectivebehind the enactment. We wish to place reliance on the recent decisionof this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Harsolia Motors, 2023SCC OnLine SC 409, A

BC

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

“21. The Act, 1986 is a social benefit-oriented legislation and,therefore, the Court has to adopt a constructive liberal approachwhile construing the provisions of the Act. To begin with thePreamble of the Act, 1986 which can afford useful assistance toascertain the legislative intention, it was enacted to provide forthe protection of the interests of consumers. Use of the word“protection” furnishes key to the minds of makers of the Act.Various definitions and provisions which elaborately attempt toachieve this objective have to be construed in this light withoutdeparting from the settled law that a Preamble cannot controlotherwise plain meaning of a provision.

22. In fact, the law meets long felt necessity of protecting thecommon man from such wrong for which the remedy underordinary law for various reasons has become illusory. Variouslegislations and regulations permitting the State to intervene andprotect interests of the consumers have become a haven forunscrupulous ones as the enforcement machinery either does notmove or it moves ineffectively and inefficiently for reasons whichare not necessary to be stated.

23. The importance of the Act lies in promoting welfare of thesociety by enabling the consumer to participate directly in themarket economy. A scrutiny of various definitions such as“consumer”, “service”, “trader”, “unfair trade practice” indicatesthat legislature has attempted to widen the ambit and reach of theAct. Each of these definitions are in two parts, one explanatoryand the other inclusive. The explanatory or the main part itselfuses expressions of amplitude indicating clearly its wide sweepwithin its ambit to widen such things which otherwise would havebeen beyond its natural import.

24. The provisions of the Act, 1986 thus have to be construedin favour of the consumer to achieve the purpose of enactment asit is a social benefit-oriented legislation. The primary duty of theCourt/Commission while construing the provisions of such an Actis to adopt a constructive approach subject to that it should not doviolence to the language of the provisions and is not contrary toattempted objective of the enactment.”

ALPHA G184 OWNERS ASSOCIATION v. MAGNUM INTERNATIONALTRADING COMPANY PVT. LTD. [M. M. SUNDRESH, J.]

16. Section 2(b) of the 1986 Act, under which the present complaintswere filed, defines the word “complainant”. It is certainly illustrative innature requiring a broader, exhaustive and inclusive meaning andinterpretation. Similar is the case with Section 12 of the 1986 Act whichspecifies the manner in which a complaint shall be made. We shall placeon record the relevant provisions, “2. Definitions. - (1) In this Act, unless the context otherwiserequires,—

xxxxxxxxx

(b) “complainant” means—

(i) a consumer; or

(ii) any voluntary consumer association registered underthe Companies Act,1956 (1of 1956) or under anyother law for the time being in force; or

(iii) the Central Government or any State Government;or

(iv) one or more consumers, where there are numerousconsumers having the same interest;

(v) in case of death of a consumer, his legal heir orrepresentative; who or which makes a complaint.

12. Manner in which complaint shall be made.—(1) Acomplaint in relation to any goods sold or delivered or agreed tobe sold or delivered or any service provided or agreed to beprovided may be filed with a District Forum by –

(a) the consumer to whom such goods are sold or delivered oragreed to be sold or delivered or such service provided oragreed to be provided; (b)any recognised consumer association whether the consumerto whom the goods sold or delivered or agreed to be sold ordelivered or service provided or agreed to be provided is amember of such association or not;

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A(c)one or more consumers, where there are numerousconsumers having the same interest, with the permission ofthe District Forum, on behalf of, or for the benefit of, allconsumers so interested; or (d)the Central Government or the State Government, as theBcase may be, either in its individual capacity or as arepresentative of interests of the consumers in general.

(2) Every complaint filed under sub-section (1) shall beaccompanied with such amount of fee and payable in such manneras may be prescribed.

C

(3) On receipt of a complaint made under sub-section (1), theDistrict Forum may, by order, allow the complaint to be proceededwith or rejected:

Provided that a complaint shall not be rejected under this sectionDunless an opportunity of being heard has been given to thecomplainant:

Provided further that the admissibility of the complaint shallordinarily be decided within twenty-one days from the date onwhich the complaint was received.

E

(4) Where a complaint is allowed to be proceeded with undersub-section (3), the District Forum may proceed with the complaintin the manner provided under this Act:

Provided that where a complaint has been admitted by theFDistrict Forum, it shall not be transferred to any other court ortribunal or any authority set up by or under any other law for thetime being in force.

Explanation. - For the purpose of this section “recognisedconsumer association” means any voluntary consumer associationGregistered under the Companies Act, 1956 or any other law forthe time being in force.

13. Procedure on admission of complaint. — (1) The DistrictForum shall, on admission of a complaint, if it relates to any goods, —

H

ALPHA G184 OWNERS ASSOCIATION v. MAGNUM INTERNATIONALTRADING COMPANY PVT. LTD. [M. M. SUNDRESH, J.]

xxxxxxxxx

(6) Where the complainant is a consumer referred to in sub-clause(iv) of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 2, the provisions ofrule 8 of Order I of the First Schedule to the Code of CivilProcedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) shall apply subject to the modificationthat every reference therein to a suit or decree shall be construedas a reference to a complaint or the order of the District Forumthereon.

17. Upon a conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions, Section2(1)(b)(i) of the 1986 Act would be interpreted to mean “consumers”.Sub-section (1)(b)(i) to Section 2 of the 1986 Act stands on a distinctand different footing than sub-section (1)(b) (iv), where there arenumerous consumers having the same interest. Sub-section (1) (c) toSection 12 of the 1986 Act alone has to be read with sub-section (6) ofSection 13 of the 1986 Act which contemplates the procedure onadmission of a complaint. The need for the application of Order I Rule 8of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”),which speaks of a plaintiff representing the other public as a wholewould be required only in a case involving a complaint under Section12(1)(c) of the 1986 Act. In other words, it does not have any applicationwhen similarly placed complainants jointly make a complaint seeking thevery same relief. In such a case, there is no question of Order I Rule 8CPC being complied with as they do not represent the others, particularlywhen there is no larger public interest involved. Such complainants seekreliefs for themselves and nothing beyond.

18. The 2019 Act, contains pari materia provisions found in theearlier one. Interpreting these provisions, this Court in BrigadeEnterprises Ltd. v. Anil Kumar Virmani (2022) 4 SCC 138 has heldas follows, “35. A careful reading of the above provisions wouldshow that there is no scope for the contention that whereverthere are more consumers than one, they must only takerecourse to Order 1 Rule 8 CPC, even if the complaint isnot on behalf of or for the benefit of, all the consumersinterested in the matter. There may be cases where only“a few consumers” and not “numerous consumers” havethe same interest. There is nothing in the Act to prohibit

A

B

C

DEF

GH

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

these few consumers from joining together and filing a jointcomplaint. A joint complaint stands in contrast to a complaintfiled in a representative capacity. For attracting theprovisions of Section 35(1)(c), the complaint filed by oneor more consumers should be on behalf of or for the benefitof numerous consumers having same interest. It does notmean that where there are only very few consumers havingthe same interest, they cannot even join together and file asingle complaint, but should take recourse only toindependent and separate complaints.

36. It is true that Section 2(5)(i) uses the expression“a consumer”. If the vowel “a” and the word “consumer”appearing in Section 2(5)(i) are to be understood to excludemore than one person, it will result in a disastrousconsequence while reading Section 2(5)(vi). Section 2(5)(vi)states that in the case of death of a consumer, “his legalheir or legal representative” will be a complainant. Unlessthe words “legal heir” and “legal representative” areunderstood to mean “legal heirs” and “legalrepresentatives”, a meaningful reading of the provision maynot be there.

37. Under Section 13(2) of the General Clauses Act, 1897,words in the singular shall include the plural and vice versa in allCentral Acts and Regulations, unless there is anything repugnantin the subject or context. We cannot read anything repugnant inthe subject or context of Section 2(5) or 35(1)(c) or 38(11) of theConsumer Protection Act, 2019 to hold that the word in the singular,namely, “consumer” will not include the plural.

38. We may take for example a case where a residentialapartment is purchased by the husband and wife jointly or by aparent and child jointly. If they have a grievance against the builder,both of them are entitled to file a complaint jointly. Such a complaintwill not fall under Section 35(1)(c) but fall under Section 35(1)(a).Persons filing such a complaint cannot be excluded from Section2(5)(i) on the ground that it is not by a single consumer. It cannotalso be treated as one by persons falling under Section 2(5)( v)attracting the application of Order 1 Rule 8 CPC read with Section38(11).

39. Therefore, the proper way of interpreting Section35(1) read with Section 2(5), would be to say that a complaintmay be filed:

(i) by a single consumer;

(ii) by a recognised consumer association;

(iii) by one or more consumers jointly, seeking theredressal of their own grievances withoutrepresenting other consumers who may or maynot have the same interest;

(iv) by one or more consumers on behalf of or forthe benefit of numerous consumers; and

(v) the Central Government, Central Authority orState Authority.

40. It must be remembered that the provisions of theConsumer Protection Act are in addition to and not in derogationof the provisions of any other law for the time being in force, byvirtue of Section 100. Even Section 38 which prescribes theprocedure to be followed by the Commission for enquiring intothe complaint, does not expressly exclude the application of theprovisions of CPC. Though sub-sections (9), (11) and (12) ofSection 38 make specific reference only to a few provisions ofthe Code of Civil Procedure, the principle behind Order 1 Rule 1enabling more than one person to join in a suit as plaintiff is notexpressly excluded.

41. Therefore, we are of the considered view that whilethe National Commission was wrong in this case, in thepeculiar facts and circumstances in permitting an applicationunder Section 35(1)(c) read with Order 1 Rule 8 CPC, itdoes not mean that the complaint filed by the respondentsitself is liable to be thrown out. Thecomplaint filed by therespondents may have to be treated as a joint complaintand not a complaint in a representative capacity on behalfof 1134 purchasers.The purchasers of other flats, such as theintervenors herein may join as parties to the consumer complaint,if they so desire. As a matter of fact, it is stated by the intervenors A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

that pursuant to the impugned order [Anil Kumar Virmani v.Brigade Enterprises Ltd., 2021 SCC OnLine NCDRC 417],advertisements were issued and the intervenors have already filedimpleadment application before the National Commission. Theyare entitled to be impleaded.”

B

19. Having considered the decision of this Court in BrigadeEnterprises Ltd. (supra), the members of the appellant, who had filedaffidavits, would fall under Section 12(1)(a) of the 1986 Act, andtherefore, there is no need to go into the issue as to whether the casewould come under Section 12(1)(b) of the 1986 Act, for the good reasonthat the definition of ‘complainant’ under Section 2(b)(i) of the 1986 Act,will include multiple consumers. In such view of the matter, the law laiddown by this Court in Brigade Enterprises Ltd. (supra) will apply onall fours to the case on hand.

C

D

20. The National Commission in a subsequent decision in AkshayKumar & Ors. v. Adani Brahma Synergy Pvt. Ltd in ConsumerComplaint No. 48 of 2021 etc., dated 06.03.2023, took note of the aforesaiddecision on both counts, namely, the right of several complainants havingsame and similar interest in filing a single complaint and computation ofpecuniary jurisdiction. The following paragraphs would be of relevance, E

“27. As has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court inBrigade Enterprises (supra), it can be concluded that for filinga Complaint under section 35(1)(c) of the Act in RepresentativeCapacity the complaint should be filed by one or more consumersFon behalf of or for the benefit of numerous consumers havingsame interest.

G

H

28. As in all the aforementioned Consumer Complaints,there is no sameness of interest, relying upon the Principlelaid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in BrigadeEnterprises (supra), permission to file the Complaint in therepresentative capacity under section 35(1)(c) of the Act,cannot be granted. Therefore, the Applications seekingpermission to file the Complaint in the representativecapacity under section 35(1)(c) of the Act, are rejected.However, all the original Complainants in the respective Complaint Cases can be permitted to file the JointComplaints. Accordingly, the present Consumer ComplaintCases are ordered to be treated as Joint Complaints filedonly on behalf of the Complainants, who have originally filedthe respective Complaints.

29. Now, the question arises, whether each of the Complainantshave to pay the consideration of more than 2 Crore or not, sothat this Commission can entertain their Complaints.

30. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in BrigadeEnterprises (supra) (in para 35, 36 & 37), that there isnothing in the Act, which prohibits the few Complainantsfrom joining together and filing Joint Complaint. The wordcomplaint includes plural i.e., complaints also. Thus, a Joint-Complaint is maintainable and it will be treated as onecomplaint.”

21. In holding so, the National Commission took note of its earlierdecision in Ambrish Kumar Shukla v. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd. in Consumer Complaint No. 97 of 2016 dated 07.10.2016, which isreproduced hereunder, “31. xxx xxx xxx

(ii) Whether a complaint under Section 12(1)(c) of theConsumer Protection Act is maintainable, before thisCommission, where the value of the goods or servicesand compensation, if any, claimed in respect of none ofthe allottees / purchasers exceeds Rupees one crore.

(iii) Whether a complaint under Section 12(1)(c) of theConsumer Protection Act is maintainable before thisCommission, where the value of the goods or servicesand the compensation claimed in respect of an individualallottee exceeds Rupees one crore in the case of one ormore allottees but does not exceed Rupees one crorein respect of other allottees; A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

(iv) Whether a complaint under Section 12(1)(c) of theConsumer Protection Act is maintainable, in a case ofallotment of several flats in a project / building, wherethe allotments / bookings / purchases are made ondifferent dates and or the agreed cost of the flat and / orthe area of the flat is not identical in all the bookings /allotments / purchases.”

32. In Para 12 of the Order, the larger Bench had held as under:-“12. Issue No. (ii) and (iii)

Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it isrelevant provides that this Commission shall have jurisdiction toentertain complaints where the value of the goods or services andcompensation, if any, claimed exceeds 1.00 crore. Therefore,what has to be seen, for the purpose of determining the pecuniaryjurisdiction, is the value of the goods or services and the amountof the compensation claimed in the complaint. If the aggregate of(i) the value of the goods or services and (ii) the compensationclaimed in the complaint exceeds 1.00 crore, this Commissionwould have pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.Similarly, if the aggregate of the value of (i) the goods or servicesand (ii) compensation, if any, claimed in the complaint exceeds 20.00 lacs but does not exceed 1.00 Crore, the State Commissionwould have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.Since a complaint under Section 12(1)(c) of the ConsumerProtection Act can be filed only where there are numerousconsumers having the same interest and it has to be filedon behalf of or for the benefit of all the consumers sointerested i.e. all of the numerous consumers having thesame interest, it is the aggregate of the value of the goodspurchased or services hired or availed of, by all thosenumerous consumers and the total compensation, if any,claimed for all those numerous consumers, which woulddetermine the pecuniary jurisdiction of thisCommission.If the aggregate of the value of the goods purchased or theservices hired or availed of by all the consumers havingthe same interest and the total compensation, if any, claimedfor all of them comes to more than 1.00 crore, the

pecuniary jurisdiction would rest with this Commissionalone. The value of the goods purchased or the serviceshired or availed of and the quantum of compensation, if any,claimed in respect of the one individual consumer therefore,would be absolutely irrelevant for the purpose ofdetermining the pecuniary jurisdiction in such a complaint.In fact, this issue is no more res Integra in view of the decision ofa Four-Members Bench of this Commission in Public HealthEngineering Department Vs. Upbhokta Sanrakshan Samiti I(1992) CPJ 182 (NC). In the above referred case, a complaintwas preferred, seeking to recover compensation for allegednegligence on the part of the petitioner which had resulted in alarge number of persons getting infected by Jaundice. The namesof 46 such persons were mentioned in the complaint but it wasalleged that there were thousands of other sufferers who weresimilarly placed and that complaint was filed on behalf of all ofthem. The complainant had sought compensation of 20,000/-for every student victim, 10,000/- for every general victimand 1,00,000/- for the legal representatives of those whohad died due to Jaundice. The District Forum held that it had nopecuniary jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the complaint. The StateCommission took the view that the District Forum has to go bythe value as specified for each consumer. Rejecting the view takenby the State Commission, this Commission inter- alia held as under:

“5. In our opinion this proposition is clearly wrong since underthe terms of Section 11 of the Act the pecuniary jurisdiction ofthe District Forum would depend upon the quantum ofcompensation claimed in the petition. The view expressed bythe State Commission is not based on a correct understandingor interpretation of Section 11. On the plain words used inSection 11 of the Act, the aggregate quantum of compensationclaimed in the petition will determine the question of jurisdictionand when the complaint is filed in a representative capacity onbehalf of several persons, as in the present case, the totalamount of compensation claimed by the representative bodyon behalf of all the persons whom it represents will govern thevaluation of the complaint petition for purposes of jurisdiction”.

ABC

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

6. The quantum of compensation claimed in the petition beingfar in excess of 1.00 lac the District Forum was perfectlyright in holding that it had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon thecomplaint. The reversal of the said order by the StateCommission was contrary to law”.

Therefore, irrespective of the value of the goods purchasedor the service hired and availed of by an individualpurchaser / allottee and the compensation claimed inrespect of an individual purchaser / allottee, thisCommission would have the pecuniary jurisdiction toentertain the complaint if the aggregate of the value of thegoods purchased or the services hired or availed of by the numerous consumers on whose behalf or for whose benefitthe complaint is filed and the total compensation claimedfor all of them exceeds 1.00 crore.

Issue No. (iv)

13. As noted earlier, what is required for the applicability of Section12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act read with Order I Rule8 of the Code of Civil Procedure is the sameness of the interesti.e. a common grievance of numerous persons which is sought toget redressed through a representative action. Therefore, so longas the grievance of the consumers is common and identical reliefis claimed for all of them, the cost, size, area of the flat / plot andthe date of booking / allotment / purchase, would be whollyimmaterial. For instance, if a builder / developer has sold 100 flatsin a project out of which 25 are three-bed room flats, 25 are two-bed room flats and 50 are one-bed room flats and he has failed todeliver timely possession of those flats, all the allottees irrespectiveof size of their respective flats / plots, the date of their respectivepurchase and the cost agreed to be paid by them have a commongrievance i.e. the failure of the builder/ developer to deliverpossession of the flat / plot sold to them and a complaint filed forthe benefit of or on behalf of all such consumers and claimingsame relief for all of them, would be maintainable under Section12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act. The relief claimed willbe the same / identical if for instance, in a case of failure of thebuilder to deliver timely possession, refund, or possession or in the alternative refund with or without compensation is claimed for allof them. Different reliefs for one or more of the consumers onwhose behalf or for whose benefit the complaint is filed cannotbe claimed in such a complaint.”

22. The following is the ultimate conclusion arrived at, “34. It may be mentioned here that the Judgment passed bythe Three-Member Bench of this Commission in the case ofAmbrish Kumar Shukla (supra), has been affirmed by a Five-Member Bench of this Commission vide Order dated 26.10.2021passed in “ CC No. 1703 of 2018, Renu Singh v. ExperionDevelopers Private Limited” and other connected matters”wherein it has been held that the Full Bench of this Commission inAmbrish Kumar Shukla & 21 Ors. v. Ferrous InfrastructurePvt. Ltd. I 2017 CPJ 1 (NC), lays down the law correctly onthe issue relating to pecuniary jurisdiction.

35. Though, under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986,the value of goods or services and compensation claimedwas to be taken for determining the pecuniary jurisdictionof the Consumer Fora but the Principle laid down by theLarger Bench in the case of Ambrish Kumar Shukla (supra),would also be applicable for determining the value of goodsand services paid as consideration in the Complaint where-the Complaint has been filed as a JointComplaint by morethan one person.

36. Admittedly, in the present cases, the value of theconsideration paid by all the persons who have joined asComplainants in the Joint Complaint, exceeds 2 Crores,therefore, this Commission has pecuniary jurisdiction under Section58(1)(a)(i) of the Act to entertain all the present Joint Complaints.Accordingly, it is held that all the present Joint Complaints aremaintainable before this Commission.”

23. In light of the aforesaid exposition of law, which the NationalCommission itself took note of in its subsequent decision, the present A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aappeals deserve to be allowed. Complaints have already been registered,and in any case, the issue pertaining to registration and the byelaws hasgot no relevancy, particularly in light of the submission made by thelearned counsel for the appellant that affidavits have been filed byindividual allottees. A pedantic and hyper-technical approach would cause damage to the very concept of consumerism. We further note that evenBafter five years the appellant is unable to proceed, and the cases havenot progressed.

24. In such view of the matter, the impugned orders are set aside,and the appeals are allowed. Pending applications, if any, are disposedCof. The National Commission shall proceed to hear the matters on merits,expeditiously. No order as to costs.

D

Nidhi Jain

(Assisted by : Arjun Narang and Tamana, LCRAs)

Appeals allowed.

E

F

G

H