Many consumers can file joint complaint in consumer fora — what sc order on flat owners’ plea means

Many consumers can file joint complaint in consumer fora — what sc order on flat owners’ plea means

New Delhi: Can multiple consumers with the same interest file a joint lawsuit under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, instead of authorising a representative to act on their behalf as laid down by the law? Yes, says the Supreme Court.

In an order that’s likely to make such lawsuits significantly simpler, the Supreme Court Monday ruled that a “consumer” under the Consumer Protection Act means “consumers”.

It also said that “similarly placed complainants (who) jointly make a complaint seeking the very same relief” can seek redressal without going through the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — a requirement in the consumer law.

Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) makes a provision for one person to represent others in cases where there are multiple people having the same interest in the suit.

The court was hearing a lawsuit by Alpha G184 Owners Association, a group of house allottees who were suing Delhi-based construction firm Magnum International Trading Company Pvt Ltd for failing to complete the construction of a housing project within the promised time.

In its ruling, a division bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and M.M. Sundresh said that in cases where there were multiple consumers with the same interest, “there is no question of Order I Rule 8 CPC being complied with as they do not represent the others, particularly when there is no larger public interest involved”.

“Such complainants seek reliefs for themselves and nothing beyond,” the bench said, reiterating earlier judgments that held that consumers having similar interests can file a joint complaint instead of filing it in a representative capacity under the provisions of the CPC.

In doing so, the court asserted that the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, is meant to “encourage consumerism in the country”, and both this law as well as the 1986 iteration have a “laudable objective”.

“Any technical approach in construing the provisions against the consumer would go against the very objective behind the enactment,” the court said.