Summary
The Supreme Court upheld non-maintainability of collective consumer complaints brought without the representative-action requirements of the 1986 Act and Order I Rule 8 CPC. Permission and procedure formed one statutory mechanism, which could not be bypassed to aggregate claims before a higher pecuniary forum. Given the lengthy proceedings already completed, the complainants could approach the State Commission using the existing pleadings and evidence.
Issues
- Whether collective complaints under section 12(1)(c) could proceed without compliance with section 13(6) and Order I Rule 8 CPC.
- What procedural protection should accompany the dismissal after years of pleadings and evidence.
Provisions considered
- Sections 2(1)(b)(iv), 12(1)(c) and 13(6), Consumer Protection Act, 1986The representative complainant category, permission requirement and application of Order I Rule 8 formed an integrated mandatory mechanism. (¶¶ 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15)
- Order I Rule 8, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908The representative-action safeguards applied through section 13(6); the complainants could not invoke collective standing while declining the incorporated procedure. (¶¶ 12, 13, 14, 16)
Held
- Section 12(1)(c) and section 13(6) were to be read together. The latter’s mandatory language applied Order I Rule 8, with the statutory substitutions, to complaints in the relevant representative category. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13)
- A separate collective category free of those safeguards could not be created through broad interpretation contrary to the clear text. Such a reading would enable aggregation in a higher pecuniary forum without the required representative procedure. (¶ 14)
- The National Commission’s interpretation in Ambrish Kumar was approved and dismissal of the two complaints as not maintainable was sustained. The complainants declined the opportunity to pursue the statutory representative requirements. (¶¶ 15, 16)
- Because pleadings and evidence had already been completed over several years, the complainants could approach the concerned State Commission, which was to proceed on the same pleadings and evidence from the stage reached, rather than start de novo. (¶ 16)
Result
Appeals disposed of without costs; non-maintainability upheld, with liberty to approach the concerned State Commission on the existing pleadings and evidence from the stage already reached.