Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a judgment of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissing a complaint filed by 44 appellants under Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as a class action. The appellants had booked office spaces and commercial units in a project launched by the respondent, Intellicity Business Park Pvt. Ltd. The Builder-Buyer Agreement required delivery of possession within four years, but the respondent failed to honour its commitment, and the project was still at the excavation stage. The appellants sought refund of amounts paid along with interest and compensation. The National Commission held that the complaint could not be maintained as a class action because the complainants did not allege that all allottees of commercial units had booked them solely for earning their livelihood by way of self-employment, as required by the definition of 'consumer' under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. The Supreme Court, however, found that the National Commission had erred. The Court noted that the requirement for a class action under Section 12(1)(c) is sameness of interest, not identical cause of action, as held in Chairman, Tamil Nadu Housing Board v. T.N. Ganapathy. The appellants had a common grievance of non-delivery of possession, and the purpose of booking (commercial or self-employment) is a matter of evidence that can be led at trial. The Court also observed that the National Commission had not considered the application under Section 12(1)(c) on its merits but had dismissed the complaint at the threshold. The Supreme Court set aside the order of the National Commission and remitted the matter for fresh consideration, directing the National Commission to decide the application under Section 12(1)(c) afresh, keeping in view the observations made in the judgment.
Headnote
A) Consumer Protection - Class Action - Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Maintainability - The National Commission dismissed the complaint as a class action on the ground that the complainants did not allege that all allottees booked the units solely for earning livelihood by self-employment - The Supreme Court held that the requirement for a class action under Section 12(1)(c) is sameness of interest, not identical cause of action - The complainants had a common grievance of non-delivery of possession, and the purpose of booking (commercial or self-employment) is a matter of evidence, not a bar to class action at the threshold - The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the National Commission for fresh consideration (Paras 11-14).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a complaint filed under Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on behalf of all allottees of commercial units is maintainable as a class action when the complainants have not alleged that all allottees booked the units solely for earning livelihood by self-employment
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the National Commission, and remitted the matter for fresh consideration. The National Commission was directed to decide the application under Section 12(1)(c) afresh, keeping in view the observations made in the judgment.
Law Points
- Class action maintainability under Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act
- 1986 requires sameness of interest
- not identical cause of action
- definition of consumer includes those earning livelihood by self-employment
- Order I Rule 8 CPC applies to consumer complaints
