Case: ANJUM HUSSAIN Vs. INTELLICITY BUSINESS PARK PVT LTD

the same cause of action as the persons represented by him. The rule is being substituted by a new rule and an explanation is being added to clarify that such persons need not have the same cause of action.?There is, therefore, no doubt that the persons who may be represented in a sui under Order I, Rule 8 need not have the same cause of action. The trial court in the present case was right in permitting the respondent to sue on behalf of all the allottees of Ashok Nagar. We, therefore, do not find any merit in this appeal which is dismissed with costs. Before closing, however, we would like to point out that the plaintiff has represented only those in the low income group in Ashok Nagar who will be governed by this judgment, and nothing that has been said or decided in this case is applicable to any other group or colony.?13. Very same issue was dealt with by Full Bench of the National Commission in Ambrish Kumar Shukla and Ors. vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Consumer Case No.97 of 2016, decided on 07.10.2016 . The National Commission relied upon the decision of this Court in T.N. Housing Board (1990) 1 SCC 608 . Relevant portion of the decision of the National Commission was :-?10. Since by virtue of Section 13(6) of the Consumer Protection Act, the provisions of the Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC apply to the consumer complaints filed by one or more consumers where there are numerous consumers having the same interest, the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Tamil Nadu Housing Board (supra) would squarely apply, while answering the reference. The purpose of giving a statutory recognition to such a complaint being to avoid the multiplicity of litigation, the effort should be to give an interpretation which would sub serve the said objective, by reducing the increasing inflow of the consumer complaints to the Consumer Forums. The reduction in the number of consumer complaints will be cost effective not only for the consumers but also for the service provider.11..……As held by the Honble Supreme Court in Tamil Nadu Housing Board (supra), the interest of the persons on whose behalf the claim is brought must be common or they must have a common grievance which they seek to get addressed. The defect or deficiency in 2 Consumer Case No.97 of 2016, decided on 07.10.2016 the goods purchased, or the services hired or availed of by them should be the same for all the consumers on whose behalf or for whose benefit the complaint is filed. Therefore, the oneness of the interest is akin to a common grievance against the same person. If, for instance, a number of flats or plots in a project are sold by a builder/developer to a number of persons, he fails to deliver possession of the said flats/plots within the time frame promised by him, and a complaint is filed by one or more such persons, either seeking delivery of possession of flats/plots purchased by them and other purchasers in the said project, or refund of the money paid by them and the other purchasers to the developer/builder is sought, the grievance of such persons being common i.e. the failure of the builder/developer to deliver timely possession of the flats/plots sold to them, they would have same interest in the subject matter of the complaint and sufficient community of interest to justify the adoption of the procedure prescribed in Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, provided that the complaint is filed on behalf of or for the benefit of all the persons having a common grievance against the same developer/builder, and identical relief is sought for all such consumers.The primary object behind permitting a class action such as a complaint under Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act being to facilitate the decision of a consumer dispute in which a large number of consumers are interested, without recourse to each of them filing an individual complaint, it is necessary that such a complaint is filed on behalf of or for the benefit of all the persons having such a community of interest. A complaint on behalf of only some of them therefore will not be maintainable. If for instance, 100 flat buyers/plot buyers in a project have a common grievance against the Builder/Developer and a complaint under Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act is filed on behalf of or for the benefit of say 10 of them, the primary purposebehind permitting a class action will not be achieved, since the remaining 90 aggrieved persons will be compelled either to file individual complaints or to file complaints on behalf of or for the benefit of the different group of purchasers in the same project. This, in our view, could not have been the Legislative intent. The term persons so interested and persons having the same interest used in Section 12(1)(c) mean, the persons having a common grievance against the same service provider. The use of the words all consumers so interested and "on behalf of or for the benefit of all consumers so interested", in Section 12(1) (c) leaves no doubt that such a complaint must necessarily be filed on behalf of or for the benefit of all the persons having a common grievance, seeking a common relief and consequently having a community of interest against the same service provider.?14. It was observed by this Court in T.N. Housing Board (1990) 1 SCC 608 that the provision must receive an interpretation which would subserve the object for its enactment. It is in this light that the Full Bench of the National Commission held that oneness of the interest is akin to a common grievance against the same person.15. However, the National Commission in the instant case, completely lost sight of the principles so clearly laid down in the decisions referred to above. In our view, the approach in the instant case was totally erroneous.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]11. According to the National Commission, though all the appellants had a common grievance that the respondent had not delivered possession of the respective units booked by them and thus the respondent was deficient in rendering service, it was not shown how many of the allottees had booked the shops/commercial units solely for the purchase of earning their livelihood by way of self-employment.However, the National Commission in the instant case, completely lost sight of the principles so clearly laid down in the decisions referred to above. In our view, the approach in the instant case was totally erroneous.