CAUSE TITLE:
Brigade Enterprises Limited v. Anil Kumar Virmani & Ors.
DATE OF ORDER:
17 December 2021
JUDGE(S):
Hon’ble Justice Mukta Gupta
PARTIES:
Appellant: Brigade Enterprises Limited
Respondent: Anil Kumar Virmani & Ors.
SUBJECT:
The Hon’ble Supreme Court (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Court’), set-aside the impugned order and judgement passed by the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, wherein the respondents were allowed to jointly pursue a matter against the appellants in a recovery suit.
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
The Consumer Protection Act, 1986
- Section 2 - In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires -
- “appropriate laboratory” means a laboratory or organisation;
- recognised by the Central Government;
- recognised by a State Government, subject to such guidelines as may be prescribed by the Central Government in this behalf; or
- any such laboratory or organisation established by or under any law for the time being in force, which is maintained, financed or aided by the Central Government or a State Government for carrying out analysis or test of any goods with a view to determining whether such goods suffer from any defect
- Section 12 - Manner in which complaint shall be made -
- 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 -
- 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;
- any recognised consumer association whether the consumer to whom the goods sold or delivered or agreed to be sold or delivered or service provided or agreed to be provided is a member of such association or not;
- one or more consumers, where there are numerous consumers having the same interest, with the permission of the District Forum, on behalf of, or for the benefit of, all consumers so interested; or
- the Central or the State Government, as the case may be, either in its individual capacity or as a representative of interests of the consumers in general.
BRIEF FACTS:
- In this case, the appellant company dealing in real estate business filed an appeal against the impugned order and judgement of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) u/s 35(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Vide this order, NCDRC allowed 91 flat-owners of 51 apartments in a residential complex developed by the appellants, to file a complainant on behalf of 1000 buyers.
- Out of the total 1134 apartment units, 91 persons who were owners of 51 apartments jointly filed a complaint in NCDRC.
- A complaint was filed u/s 35(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 in NCDRC seeking permission to pursue the case jointly on behalf of the rest of the flat owners. The commission granted permission to file the case jointly.
- Consequentnly, the present appeal was filed in the Supreme Court.
QUESTIONS RAISED:
- Whether the NCDRC erred in granting permission to the flat owners to pursue the matter jointly on behalf of owners of the rest of the flat owners?
- Whether a suit for delay in delivery of possession by some flat owners in a residential area can come within the ambit of Consumer Protection Act?
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS:
- The respondents contended that it would be cumbersome for them to individually file separate suits against the appellants. Not only would it take court’s time but it would also take up more resources than required.
- It was also contended that since the facts, issue, reasoning and the grievance is same, all the flat owners should be allowed to file the matter jointly and a few of them should pursue it on behalf of the rest.
ANALYSIS BY THE COURT:
- The Ld. Court observed that in order to claim the benefit u/s 35(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, there must be similarity in the interest of all the flat owners or between some flat owners belonging to different blocks of the residential area.
- The Court observed that there is no indication which suggests that the flat owners have the same interest in mind.
- The Court set-aside the order of the commission and held that the complaint filed by the respondents would be treated as a joint complaint. The Court also held that any other person who wants to become a party to the said complaint will be allowed by NCDRC.
CONCLUSION
The Ld. Court set-aside the impugned order and judgement passed by the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, wherein the respondents were allowed to jointly pursue a matter against the appellants in a recovery suit.
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.
