Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from an order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dated 19 February 2016, which dismissed a consumer complaint filed by twenty-six flat buyers against Supertech Limited and others. The complainants had booked flats in a residential project named 'Oxford Square' in Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh. They sought various reliefs including withdrawal of possession offers made without a valid occupancy certificate, refund of illegal charges, and compensation for delayed possession. The complainants filed an application under Section 12(1)(c) read with Section 2(1)(b)(iv) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking permission to file a joint complaint, claiming commonality of interest. The NCDRC rejected the application on the grounds that the agreements were executed on different dates (August 2010 to January 2014), flats were of different sizes, total costs differed, offers of possession were made on different dates (January 2015 to April 2015), and compensation amounts varied (Rs 7.31 lakhs to Rs 26.70 lakhs). The NCDRC held there was nothing common between the complainants and dismissed the complaint, granting liberty to file individual complaints. The Supreme Court noted that after the NCDRC's decision, a Full Bench of the NCDRC in Ambrish Kumar Shukla v Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 1 CPJ 1 (NC) clarified that for a complaint under Section 12(1)(c), the requirement is sameness of interest, i.e., a common grievance, and differences in cost, size, area, and date of booking are immaterial. The Supreme Court also referred to Anjum Hussain v Intellicity Business Park Pvt. Ltd. (2019) 6 SCC 519 which took note of the Full Bench decision. The Court held that the NCDRC's view was contrary to the correct legal position. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and remitted the matter to the NCDRC for fresh consideration of the complaint in accordance with law, particularly in light of the principles laid down in Ambrish Kumar Shukla.
Headnote
A) Consumer Law - Representative Complaint - Section 12(1)(c) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Commonality of Interest - The NCDRC dismissed a joint complaint by 26 flat buyers on grounds of differences in agreement dates, flat sizes, costs, and compensation claims. The Supreme Court held that the test under Section 12(1)(c) is sameness of interest, not identity of all facts. So long as the grievance is common and identical relief is claimed, differences in cost, size, area, and date of booking are immaterial. The matter was remitted to NCDRC for fresh consideration in light of the Full Bench decision in Ambrish Kumar Shukla (Paras 1-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a complaint under Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is maintainable when multiple flat buyers have different dates of booking, costs, sizes of flats, and compensation amounts, but share a common grievance against the builder.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order of the NCDRC dated 19 February 2016, and remitted the matter to the NCDRC for fresh consideration of the complaint in accordance with law, particularly in light of the principles laid down in Ambrish Kumar Shukla v Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
Law Points
- Section 12(1)(c) of Consumer Protection Act
- 1986
- representative complaint
- commonality of interest
- sameness of interest
- Order I Rule 8 CPC
- Ambrish Kumar Shukla v Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
