Supreme Court Upholds Class Action by Homebuyers Under Section 35(1)(c) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Builder's Objection on Miniscule Percentage Rejected. Commonality of Interest Found in Delay in Possession and Unfair Trade Practices, Allowing Representative Complaint for All 1134 Apartment Purchasers.

Civil appeal against an order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission allowing a consumer complaint in a representative capacity under Section 35(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

The respondents (original complainants) sought permission to file a consumer complaint in a representative capacity for the benefit of all purchasers of apartments in the residential complex, seeking delay compensation and interest.

The builder (appellant) challenged the National Commission's order allowing the representative complaint, arguing that the complainants were a miniscule percentage and lacked commonality of interest.

The National Commission allowed the application under Section 35(1)(c) relying on Chairman, Tamil Nadu Housing Board v. T.N. Ganapathy and Ambrish Kumar Shukla v. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

Whether 91 purchasers of 51 apartments out of 1134 can maintain a consumer complaint in a representative capacity under Section 35(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Whether there is commonality of interest among all purchasers to justify a class action.

Appellant: The complainants are a miniscule percentage (51 out of 1134 apartments) and cannot file a representative complaint; there is no commonality of interest as some individual buyers have filed separate complaints. Respondents: The issue is settled by precedents; there is sameness of interest with all buyers regarding delay in possession and unfair trade practices.

A class action under Section 35(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, is maintainable even if the complainants are a miniscule percentage of the total affected consumers, provided there is commonality of interest in the core grievance. The variation in individual delay periods does not negate the commonality of interest required for a representative complaint.

Challenging an order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, passed under Section 35(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, allowing 91 purchasers of 51 apartments in the residential complex developed by them, to file a consumer complaint in a representative capacity, on behalf of and for the benefit of more than about 1000 purchasers, the builder has come up with the above appeal. The main grievance of the appellant-builder, as projected by Mr. Jayant Bhushan, learned senior counsel is that out of total of 1134 apartments constructed and sold by them, the owners of merely 51 apartments have joined together and invoked the jurisdiction of the National Consumer Commission and that such a miniscule percentage of consumers cannot seek to file the complaint in a representative capacity. However, the contention of Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents/original complainants is that the issue is no longer res integra in view of the decisions of this Court in Chairman, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Madras vs. T.N. Ganapathy and Vikrant Singh Malik & Ors. vs. Supertech Limited & Ors.

The respondents (91 purchasers of 51 apartments) filed a consumer complaint before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, along with an application under Section 35(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, seeking permission to prosecute the matter jointly for the benefit of all purchasers. The National Commission allowed the application. The builder appealed to the Supreme Court.

• Consumer Protection Act, 2019: Section 35(1)(c)
• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order I Rule 8