Consumer Protection Act, 1986: ss. 12(1)(a), 13(6) – Procedure on admission of a complaint – Joint complaint by numerous consumers without representative capacity – Permissibility of – On facts, appellant-association of allottees filed numerous consumer complaints for delayed possession, compensation for the delay and additional demands raised, against the respondent – Affidavits filed by the appellant along with the individual affidavits of the allottees – Writ petition by the respondent which was stayed by this Court – Nonetheless, the respondent filed complaint before the District Registrar of Societies that the byelaws of the appellant association not in conformity with the 2012 Act – Matter referred to the State Registrar – State Registrar directed the appellants to amend its bylaws failing which, their registration would be cancelled – Appeal by the appellants to Registrar General– During the adjudication before the Registrars, the National Commission adjourned the proceedings sine die, till the outcome of the appeal before the Registrar General – Meanwhile the byelaws amended – On appeal, held: On facts, the allottees do not represent the others – There is no larger public interest involved – Such complainants seek reliefs for themselves and nothing beyond – Thus, no question of compliance of Order I Rule 8 CPC – Definition of ‘complainant’ u/s. 2(b)(i) would include multiple consumers – Members of the appellant, who had filed affidavits, would fall u/s.12(1)(a) – Complaints have already been registered – Issue pertaining to registration and the byelaws got no relevancy – Affidavits have been filed by the individual allottees –Pedantic and hyper-technical approach would cause damage to the very concept of consumerism – Even after five years the cases have not progressed – Thus, the impugned order set aside – Haryana Registration and Regulation of Societies Act, 2012.
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Object of – Held: 2019 Act facilitates the consumers to approach the forums by providing a very flexible procedure – It is meant to encourage consumerism in the country – Any technical approach in construing the provisions against the consumer would go against the very objective behind the enactment. National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Harsolia Motors, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 409 ; Brigade Enterprises Ltd. v. Anil Kumar Virmani (2022) 4 SCC 138 – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.