Summary
The representative consumer complaint concerning delayed delivery of commercial units was wrongly rejected at the threshold. Common grievance and community of interest, rather than identical individual causes of action, governed the class-action inquiry. The National Commission’s approach requiring the complainants to establish the purpose of every other allottee’s purchase overlooked those principles. The Section 12(1)(c) application was held maintainable and the complaint restored for further proceedings.
Issues
- What sameness of interest was required for a representative consumer complaint.
- Whether the stated ground justified dismissing this complaint at inception.
Provisions considered
- Section 12(1)(c), Consumer Protection Act, 1986Representative application held maintainable on the common-grievance principles. (¶¶ 9, 12–16)
- Section 13(6), Consumer Protection Act, 1986Applied the representative-suit framework of Order I Rule 8 CPC to the collective consumer proceeding. (¶¶ 10, 12–15)
- Section 2(1)(d), Consumer Protection Act, 1986Consumer definition and livelihood through self-employment explained in the context of commercial-unit bookings. (¶¶ 4, 8)
Held
- Persons represented need not have identical causes of action; sufficient community of interest or a common grievance supports representative proceedings intended to avoid multiplicity. (¶ 12–14)
- The complaint sought common relief for the class arising from the same developer’s failure to deliver units. The National Commission’s threshold approach overlooked the settled representative-action principles and was erroneous. (¶¶ 11, 13–15)
- The representative application was maintainable and the complaint required proceedings in accordance with law; the Court did not itself award refund or compensation. (¶ 16–17)
Result
Appeal allowed. National Commission’s dismissal set aside, Section 12(1)(c) application held maintainable, and Consumer Case 2241/2018 restored to proceed in accordance with law. No costs.