Consumer Protection Act, 1986: ss. 2(1)(b)(iv), 12(c) and 13(6) – Expression in s. 2(1)(b)(iv) “one or more consumers where there are numerous consumers having the same interest” – Interpretation of – Complaint referable to s. 2(1)(b)(iv) – Application of Or. 1 r. 8 – Held: Language used and the text in s. 13(6) is clear that wherever a complaint is filed by a complainant in the category referred to in s. 2(1)(b)(iv)-one or more consumers where there are numerous consumers having the same interest”, the provisions of Or. 1 r. 8 shall apply with the modification that reference to suit or decree shall be construed as reference to a complaint or order of the District Forum – Expression “with the permission of the District Forum” as appearing in s. 12(1)(c) must be read along with s. 13(6) – Sections 12(1)(c) and 13(6) are not independent but are to be read together and they form part of the same machinery – Thus, in consumer complaints by one or more consumers where there are numerous consumers having the same interest, it is mandatory to give notice of the institution of the suit to all persons so interested in accordance with Or. 1 r. 8 – In view thereof, the National Commission rightly held that complaint filed by some of the allottees was not maintainable since there was no application u/s. s. 12(1)(c) – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or. 1 r. 8. Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The expression appearing in sub-clause (iv) of Section 2(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 reads “one or more consumers where there are numerous consumers having the same interest”. This very expression finds incorporated in sub-clause (c) of Section 12(1) with an addition following said expression, namely “... with the permission of the District Forum, on behalf of, or for the benefit of, all consumers so interested”. Section 12(1) thus, in its substantive part says that a complaint may be filed with the District Forum by any of the four categories as mentioned in sub-clauses ‘a’ to ‘d’. Since sub-clause (c) contemplates filing of such complaint, “… with the permission of the District Forum”. The context and in what manner such permission is required to be taken in terms of the provisions of the Act is available in Section 13(6) of the Act which inter alia lays down that where the complaint is referable to Section 2(1)(b)(iv), the provisions of Rule 8 of Order 1 CPC, 1908 shall apply subject to the modification that every reference therein to a suit or decree shall be construed as a reference to a complaint or the order of the District forum thereon. The mandate, “shall apply” is quite significant. [Para 11, 12][1128-B-F]
1.3 The language used and the text in s. 13(6) is clear that wherever a complaint is filed by a complainant in the category referred to in s. 2(1)(b)(iv), the provisions of Order 1 Rule 8 shall apply with the modification that reference to suit or decree shall be construed as reference to complaint or order of the District Forum. The expression “with the permission of the District Forum” appearing in s. 12(1)(c) must be read along with s.13(6) which provides the context and effect to said expression. Sections 12(1)(c) and 13(6) are not independent but are to be read together and they form part of the same machinery. [Para 13][1128-F-H]
1.4 The submission that the expression “one or more consumers, where there are numerous consumers having the same interest” may be given widest possible interpretation so as to make the redressal mechanism easy, cost effective and efficacious, cannot be accepted as the language employed in the relevant provisions is absolutely clear and does not admit of any other interpretation. If the submission of the appellants is accepted, the category of persons referred to in Section 13(6) of the Act, with the aid of requisite permission in terms of Order I Rule 8 CPC could maintain a class action which may bind similarly placed consumers but those referred to in Section 12(1)(c) would be a different category who would not be bound by the provisions of Order I Rule 8 of CPC. In essence a separate category of persons as consumer/consumers would be entitled to maintain an action under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act. Certainly that is not the intent. If the submission is accepted, it would be going against the express mandate of the statute. All that such interpretation would help achieve for some consumers is to maintain an action in a forum with higher pecuniary jurisdiction where, but for such collective cause of action, the action would not lie in such forum with higher pecuniary jurisdiction. [Para 14][1129-A-F]
1.6 The National Commission was justified in holding Consumer Case to be not maintainable. The matters were pending with the National Commission for more than three years during which time the pleadings were exchanged and the evidence was filed. In the circumstances, though the view taken by the National Commission is upheld, the proper course would be to enable the appellants to approach the concerned State Commission. If the State Commission is so approached, the matter shall not be proceeded de novo but from the stage at which it was before the National Commission. [Para 15, 16][1129-F-H; 1130-A-C] Ambrish Kumar Shukla and others v. Ferrous
Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. I (2017) CPJ 1 (NC) – approved.
The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Madras v. T.N. Ganapathy (1990) 1 SCC 608 : [1990] 1 SCR
272 ; Babu Manmohan Das Shah & ors. v. Bishun Das (1967) 1 SCR 836 – referred to.
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.