ALPHA G184 OWNERS ASSOCIATIONversusMAGNUM INTERNATIONAL TRADING COMPANY PVT. LTD.

                          [2023] 5 S.C.R. 861                            861


             ALPHA G184 OWNERS ASSOCIATION                               A
                                  v.
MAGNUM INTERNATIONAL TRADING COMPANY PVT. LTD.
                   (Civil Appeal No. 4718 of 2022)
                           MAY 15, 2023                                  B
     [J. K. MAHESHWARI AND M. M. SUNDRESH, JJ.]
       Consumer Protection Act, 1986: ss. 12(1)(a), 13(6) –
Procedure on admission of a complaint – Joint complaint by
numerous consumers without representative capacity – Permissibility
                                                                         C
of – On facts, appellant-association of allottees filed numerous
consumer complaints for delayed possession, compensation for the
delay and additional demands raised, against the respondent –
Affidavits filed by the appellant along with the individual affidavits
of the allottees – Writ petition by the respondent which was stayed
by this Court – Nonetheless, the respondent filed complaint before       D
the District Registrar of Societies that the byelaws of the appellant
association not in conformity with the 2012 Act – Matter referred to
the State Registrar – State Registrar directed the appellants to amend
its bylaws failing which, their registration would be cancelled –
Appeal by the appellants to Registrar General– During the
                                                                         E
adjudication before the Registrars, the National Commission
adjourned the proceedings sine die, till the outcome of the appeal
before the Registrar General – Meanwhile the byelaws amended –
On appeal, held: On facts, the allottees do not represent the others
– There is no larger public interest involved – Such complainants
seek reliefs for themselves and nothing beyond – Thus, no question       F
of compliance of Order I Rule 8 CPC – Definition of ‘complainant’
u/s. 2(b)(i) would include multiple consumers – Members of the
appellant, who had filed affidavits, would fall u/s.12(1)(a) –
Complaints have already been registered – Issue pertaining to
registration and the byelaws got no relevancy – Affidavits have
                                                                         G
been filed by the individual allottees –Pedantic and hyper-technical
approach would cause damage to the very concept of consumerism
– Even after five years the cases have not progressed – Thus, the
impugned order set aside – Haryana Registration and Regulation
of Societies Act, 2012.
                                                                         H
                                 861
862             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2023] 5 S.C.R.


A          Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Consumer Protection Act,
      2019 – Object of – Held: 2019 Act facilitates the consumers to
      approach the forums by providing a very flexible procedure – It is
      meant to encourage consumerism in the country – Any technical
      approach in construing the provisions against the consumer would
      go against the very objective behind the enactment.
B
            National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Harsolia Motors, 2023
            SCC OnLine SC 409 ; Brigade Enterprises Ltd. v. Anil
            Kumar Virmani (2022) 4 SCC 138 – relied on.
                               Case Law Reference
C
      (2022) 4 SCC 138                       relied on.               Para 18, 19
            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.4718
      of 2022.
            From the Judgment and Order dated 16.03.2022 of the National
D     Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at New Delhi in RA No.52
      of 2020 in Consumer Case No.3753 of 2017.
            With
            Civil Appeal Nos.329-332 of 2023
E           Narender Hooda, Sr. Adv., Rahul Rathore, Ms. Priyanjali Singh,
      Advs. for the Appellant.
            Debesh Panda, Vas Dev Verma, Kanishk Aggrawal, Advs. for
      the Respondent.

F           The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
            M. M. SUNDRESH, J.
            FACTS
             1. The appellant is an association formed by the allottees, registered
G     under Section 6 of the Haryana Registration and Regulation of Societies
      Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as “the HRRS Act”) vide certificate
      dated 01.11.2017. The respondent herein is a builder tasked with the
      development of a housing project. Inter alia alleging that the respondent
      has failed in its obligation to construct and complete the promised flats
      within the timeline agreed upon, with its failure to pay compensation for
H
  ALPHA G184 OWNERS ASSOCIATION v. MAGNUM INTERNATIONAL                            863
        TRADING COMPANY PVT. LTD. [M. M. SUNDRESH, J.]


the delay caused at its instance, and questioning the additional demands           A
raised, the appellant approached the National Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the National
Commission’) by filing a Consumer Complaint No. 3753 of 2017 initially
on behalf of 54 allottees, and thereafter, a few others. Accordingly,
complaints have been filed in Consumer Complaint No(s). 3751, 3752,
                                                                                   B
3753 & 3754 of 2017, and 407 of 2018. These complaints are filed by
the appellant on behalf of the named allottees.
       2. Consequent to the interim order dated 08.01.2018 passed in
Consumer Complaint No. 3753 of 2017, pleadings were completed
followed by affidavits filed by the appellant along with the individual            C
affidavits of the allottees. At that stage, the respondent filed a writ petition
being W.P. (C) of 3221 of 2018 before the High Court of Delhi, which
was stayed by this Court vide order dated 20.08.2018 in S.L.P. (C) No(s).
23021-23022 of 2018.
       3. Notwithstanding the above, a complaint was filed by the                  D
respondent with the District Registrar of Societies, inter alia alleging
that the aims and objectives enunciated in the byelaws of the appellant
association were not in conformity with the HRRS Act. The District
Registrar, Gurugram referred the matter to the State Registrar, Haryana
by the order dated 03.10.2018.
                                                                                   E
       4. The State Registrar, Haryana directed the appellant to amend
its byelaws within six months indicating that any failure to comply would
result in cancellation of the registration granted already. Aggrieved, the
appellant filed an appeal before the Registrar General, Haryana. As
nothing transpired on ground qua the proceedings before the Registrar
General, Haryana and without prejudice to its contentions, the appellant           F
did make an amendment which was duly registered by the District
Registrar, Gurugram on 08.11.2019.
      5. The complaint was taken up by the National Commission for
hearing on 13.11.2019. Having been informed of the order of the State
                                                                                   G
Registrar dated 12.02.2019, the proceedings were adjourned sine die,
awaiting the outcome of the appeal before the Registrar General,
Haryana.
     6. The appellant submitted an application to the Registrar General,
Haryana in the pending Appeal No. 320 of 2019 to place on record the
                                                                                   H
864             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2023] 5 S.C.R.


A     amended byelaws while reiterating the request for grant of stay. A writ
      petition was also filed by appellant being C.W.P. No. 34595 of 2019,
      wherein the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, at Chandigarh, vide its
      order dated 27.11.2019 passed an order directing the Registrar General,
      Haryana to decide the interim applications expeditiously.
B            7. Before the Registrar General, Haryana the respondent raised
      a contention placing reliance upon a copy of the notice dated 04.10.2019,
      by which the Department expressed its intention to cancel the registration.
      Accordingly, the Registrar General, Haryana passed an order restraining
      any cancellation of registration.
C            8. Under the aforesaid factual backdrop, the appellant filed an
      application before the National Commission to place on record the
      amended byelaws with the order of stay granted by the Registrar General,
      Haryana seeking a consequential prayer for the revival of the
      proceedings. The interlocutory application was allowed by taking on
D     record the documents filed. The aforesaid order was sought to be recalled
      by the respondent through a review application in R.A. No. 52 of 2020.
             9. Subsequently, the District Registrar, Gurugram by an order dated
      17.06.2020 put on hold the amendments, as certified earlier, on the premise
      that the period of six months granted got expired. The Registrar General,
E     Haryana in turn dismissed the Appeal No. 320 of 2019, finding no error
      in the order of the State Registrar, Haryana, though the appellant’s
      registration was not cancelled.
             10. The orders passed by the State Registrar and the Registrar
      General, Haryana were challenged before the High Court of Punjab &
F     Haryana, at Chandigarh, in C.W.P. No. 19666 of 2021 together with an
      application for stay. Though, the matter is still pending adjudication there
      is no interim order as of now.
             11. Before the National Commission, an additional affidavit was
      filed by the respondent in the review application, placing reliance upon
G     the order dated 07.09.2021 of the Registrar General, Haryana which is
      pending adjudication before the High Court. Similarly, the appellant also
      filed an application bringing to the notice of the National Commission,
      the pendency of the writ petition and the stay application. By the impugned
      orders, all the matters along with the interlocutory applications were
      adjourned awaiting appropriate orders in the writ petition. Seeking to set
H
 ALPHA G184 OWNERS ASSOCIATION v. MAGNUM INTERNATIONAL                         865
       TRADING COMPANY PVT. LTD. [M. M. SUNDRESH, J.]


aside the aforesaid orders passed by the National Commission, the present      A
appeals are filed before us.
      SUBMISSIONS
       12. Heard Shri Narendra Hooda, learned senior counsel, on behalf
of the appellant, and Shri Debesh Panda, learned counsel, on behalf of         B
the respondent.
       13. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that
the respondent is bent upon preventing the appellant from seeking
recourse to legal remedy. Complaints filed in the year 2017 are yet to be
adjudicated on merits. The pendency of the writ petition has got no            C
connection with the proceedings before the National Commission. It is
not as if the interest of the public in general is sought to be espoused as
against the members of the appellant. In any case, affidavits having
been filed by the individual allottees, the National Commission has erred
in adjourning the matters sine die.
                                                                               D
       14. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that
there is an inconsistency in the contentions raised by the appellant. If the
registration of the appellant is non-existent, the very complaint would
become not maintainable. Even assuming that an individual complaint
could be taken up, the forum would be that of a District Consumer
                                                                               E
Disputes Redressal Commission. As the Hon’ble High Court has not
granted any stay of the orders passed by the State Registrar and the
Registrar General, there is no infirmity in the impugned orders.
      DISCUSSION
       15. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986; 68 of 1986 (hereinafter          F
referred to as “the 1986 Act”) and the Consumer Protection Act, 2019;
35 of 2019 (hereinafter referred to as “the 2019 Act”) have got a laudable
objective. The 2019 Act facilitates the consumers to approach the forums
by providing a very flexible procedure. It is meant to encourage
consumerism in the country. Any technical approach in construing the           G
provisions against the consumer would go against the very objective
behind the enactment. We wish to place reliance on the recent decision
of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Harsolia Motors, 2023
SCC OnLine SC 409,

                                                                               H
866      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2023] 5 S.C.R.


A        “21. The Act, 1986 is a social benefit-oriented legislation and,
      therefore, the Court has to adopt a constructive liberal approach
      while construing the provisions of the Act. To begin with the
      Preamble of the Act, 1986 which can afford useful assistance to
      ascertain the legislative intention, it was enacted to provide for
      the protection of the interests of consumers. Use of the word
B
      “protection” furnishes key to the minds of makers of the Act.
      Various definitions and provisions which elaborately attempt to
      achieve this objective have to be construed in this light without
      departing from the settled law that a Preamble cannot control
      otherwise plain meaning of a provision.
C
         22. In fact, the law meets long felt necessity of protecting the
      common man from such wrong for which the remedy under
      ordinary law for various reasons has become illusory. Various
      legislations and regulations permitting the State to intervene and
      protect interests of the consumers have become a haven for
D     unscrupulous ones as the enforcement machinery either does not
      move or it moves ineffectively and inefficiently for reasons which
      are not necessary to be stated.
         23. The importance of the Act lies in promoting welfare of the
      society by enabling the consumer to participate directly in the
E     market economy. A scrutiny of various definitions such as
      “consumer”, “service”, “trader”, “unfair trade practice” indicates
      that legislature has attempted to widen the ambit and reach of the
      Act. Each of these definitions are in two parts, one explanatory
      and the other inclusive. The explanatory or the main part itself
F     uses expressions of amplitude indicating clearly its wide sweep
      within its ambit to widen such things which otherwise would have
      been beyond its natural import.
           24. The provisions of the Act, 1986 thus have to be construed
      in favour of the consumer to achieve the purpose of enactment as
G     it is a social benefit-oriented legislation. The primary duty of the
      Court/Commission while construing the provisions of such an Act
      is to adopt a constructive approach subject to that it should not do
      violence to the language of the provisions and is not contrary to
      attempted objective of the enactment.”

H
 ALPHA G184 OWNERS ASSOCIATION v. MAGNUM INTERNATIONAL                        867
       TRADING COMPANY PVT. LTD. [M. M. SUNDRESH, J.]


       16. Section 2(b) of the 1986 Act, under which the present complaints   A
were filed, defines the word “complainant”. It is certainly illustrative in
nature requiring a broader, exhaustive and inclusive meaning and
interpretation. Similar is the case with Section 12 of the 1986 Act which
specifies the manner in which a complaint shall be made. We shall place
on record the relevant provisions,
                                                                              B
      “2. Definitions. - (1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise
      requires,—
               xxx                xxx                    xxx
      (b) “complainant” means—                                                C
             (i)     a consumer; or
             (ii)    any voluntary consumer association registered under
                     the Companies Act,1956 (1of 1956) or under any
                     other law for the time being in force; or                D
             (iii)   the Central Government or any State Government;
                     or
             (iv)    one or more consumers, where there are numerous
                     consumers having the same interest;
                                                                              E
             (v)     in case of death of a consumer, his legal heir or
                     representative; who or which makes a complaint.
      12. Manner in which complaint shall be made.—(1) A
      complaint in relation to any goods sold or delivered or agreed to
      be sold or delivered or any service provided or agreed to be            F
      provided may be filed with a District Forum by –
      (a)    the consumer to whom such goods are sold or delivered or
             agreed to be sold or delivered or such service provided or
             agreed to be provided;
                                                                              G
      (b)    any recognised consumer association whether the consumer
             to whom the goods sold or delivered or agreed to be sold or
             delivered or service provided or agreed to be provided is a
             member of such association or not;
                                                                              H
868         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2023] 5 S.C.R.


A     (c)     one or more consumers, where there are numerous
              consumers having the same interest, with the permission of
              the District Forum, on behalf of, or for the benefit of, all
              consumers so interested; or
      (d)     the Central Government or the State Government, as the
B             case may be, either in its individual capacity or as a
              representative of interests of the consumers in general.
      (2) Every complaint filed under sub-section (1) shall be
      accompanied with such amount of fee and payable in such manner
      as may be prescribed.
C
      (3) On receipt of a complaint made under sub-section (1), the
      District Forum may, by order, allow the complaint to be proceeded
      with or rejected:
         Provided that a complaint shall not be rejected under this section
D     unless an opportunity of being heard has been given to the
      complainant:
         Provided further that the admissibility of the complaint shall
      ordinarily be decided within twenty-one days from the date on
      which the complaint was received.
E
      (4) Where a complaint is allowed to be proceeded with under
      sub-section (3), the District Forum may proceed with the complaint
      in the manner provided under this Act:
          Provided that where a complaint has been admitted by the
F     District Forum, it shall not be transferred to any other court or
      tribunal or any authority set up by or under any other law for the
      time being in force.
         Explanation. - For the purpose of this section “recognised
      consumer association” means any voluntary consumer association
G     registered under the Companies Act, 1956 or any other law for
      the time being in force.
      13. Procedure on admission of complaint. — (1) The District
      Forum shall, on admission of a complaint, if it relates to any goods,
      —
H
 ALPHA G184 OWNERS ASSOCIATION v. MAGNUM INTERNATIONAL                        869
       TRADING COMPANY PVT. LTD. [M. M. SUNDRESH, J.]


      xxx                        xxx                       xxx                A
      (6) Where the complainant is a consumer referred to in sub-clause
      (iv) of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 2, the provisions of
      rule 8 of Order I of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil
      Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) shall apply subject to the modification
      that every reference therein to a suit or decree shall be construed     B
      as a reference to a complaint or the order of the District Forum
      thereon.
       17. Upon a conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions, Section
2(1)(b)(i) of the 1986 Act would be interpreted to mean “consumers”.
Sub-section (1)(b)(i) to Section 2 of the 1986 Act stands on a distinct       C
and different footing than sub-section (1)(b) (iv), where there are
numerous consumers having the same interest. Sub-section (1) (c) to
Section 12 of the 1986 Act alone has to be read with sub-section (6) of
Section 13 of the 1986 Act which contemplates the procedure on
admission of a complaint. The need for the application of Order I Rule 8      D
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”),
which speaks of a plaintiff representing the other public as a whole
would be required only in a case involving a complaint under Section
12(1)(c) of the 1986 Act. In other words, it does not have any application
when similarly placed complainants jointly make a complaint seeking the
very same relief. In such a case, there is no question of Order I Rule 8      E
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.
       18. The 2019 Act, contains pari materia provisions found in the
earlier one. Interpreting these provisions, this Court in Brigade             F
Enterprises Ltd. v. Anil Kumar Virmani (2022) 4 SCC 138 has held
as follows,
            “35. A careful reading of the above provisions would
      show that there is no scope for the contention that wherever
                                                                              G
      there are more consumers than one, they must only take
      recourse to Order 1 Rule 8 CPC, even if the complaint is
      not on behalf of or for the benefit of, all the consumers
      interested in the matter. There may be cases where only
      “a few consumers” and not “numerous consumers” have
      the same interest. There is nothing in the Act to prohibit              H
870      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2023] 5 S.C.R.


A     these few consumers from joining together and filing a joint
      complaint. A joint complaint stands in contrast to a complaint
      filed in a representative capacity. For attracting the
      provisions of Section 35(1)(c), the complaint filed by one
      or more consumers should be on behalf of or for the benefit
      of numerous consumers having same interest. It does not
B
      mean that where there are only very few consumers having
      the same interest, they cannot even join together and file a
      single complaint, but should take recourse only to
      independent and separate complaints.

C           36. It is true that Section 2(5)(i) uses the expression
      “a consumer”. If the vowel “a” and the word “consumer”
      appearing in Section 2(5)(i) are to be understood to exclude
      more than one person, it will result in a disastrous
      consequence while reading Section 2(5)(vi). Section 2(5)(vi)
      states that in the case of death of a consumer, “his legal
D     heir or legal representative” will be a complainant. Unless
      the words “legal heir” and “legal representative” are
      understood to mean “legal heirs” and “legal
      representatives”, a meaningful reading of the provision may
      not be there.
E            37. Under Section 13(2) of the General Clauses Act, 1897,
      words in the singular shall include the plural and vice versa in all
      Central Acts and Regulations, unless there is anything repugnant
      in the subject or context. We cannot read anything repugnant in
      the subject or context of Section 2(5) or 35(1)(c) or 38(11) of the
F     Consumer Protection Act, 2019 to hold that the word in the singular,
      namely, “consumer” will not include the plural.
             38. We may take for example a case where a residential
      apartment is purchased by the husband and wife jointly or by a
      parent and child jointly. If they have a grievance against the builder,
G     both of them are entitled to file a complaint jointly. Such a complaint
      will not fall under Section 35(1)(c) but fall under Section 35(1)(a).
      Persons filing such a complaint cannot be excluded from Section
      2(5)(i) on the ground that it is not by a single consumer. It cannot
      also be treated as one by persons falling under Section 2(5)( v)
      attracting the application of Order 1 Rule 8 CPC read with Section
H     38(11).
ALPHA G184 OWNERS ASSOCIATION v. MAGNUM INTERNATIONAL                        871
      TRADING COMPANY PVT. LTD. [M. M. SUNDRESH, J.]


         39. Therefore, the proper way of interpreting Section               A
   35(1) read with Section 2(5), would be to say that a complaint
   may be filed:
          (i)     by a single consumer;
          (ii)    by a recognised consumer association;                      B
          (iii)   by one or more consumers jointly, seeking the
                  redressal of their own grievances without
                  representing other consumers who may or may
                  not have the same interest;
                                                                             C
          (iv)    by one or more consumers on behalf of or for
                  the benefit of numerous consumers; and
          (v)     the Central Government, Central Authority or
                  State Authority.
          40. It must be remembered that the provisions of the               D
   Consumer Protection Act are in addition to and not in derogation
   of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force, by
   virtue of Section 100. Even Section 38 which prescribes the
   procedure to be followed by the Commission for enquiring into
   the complaint, does not expressly exclude the application of the          E
   provisions of CPC. Though sub-sections (9), (11) and (12) of
   Section 38 make specific reference only to a few provisions of
   the Code of Civil Procedure, the principle behind Order 1 Rule 1
   enabling more than one person to join in a suit as plaintiff is not
   expressly excluded.
                                                                             F
           41. Therefore, we are of the considered view that while
   the National Commission was wrong in this case, in the
   peculiar facts and circumstances in permitting an application
   under Section 35(1)(c) read with Order 1 Rule 8 CPC, it
   does not mean that the complaint filed by the respondents
                                                                             G
   itself is liable to be thrown out. The complaint filed by the
   respondents may have to be treated as a joint complaint
   and not a complaint in a representative capacity on behalf
   of 1134 purchasers. The purchasers of other flats, such as the
   intervenors herein may join as parties to the consumer complaint,
   if they so desire. As a matter of fact, it is stated by the intervenors   H
872            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2023] 5 S.C.R.


A           that pursuant to the impugned order [Anil Kumar Virmani v.
            Brigade Enterprises Ltd., 2021 SCC OnLine NCDRC 417],
            advertisements were issued and the intervenors have already filed
            impleadment application before the National Commission. They
            are entitled to be impleaded.”
B                                                           (emphasis supplied)
             19. Having considered the decision of this Court in Brigade
      Enterprises Ltd. (supra), the members of the appellant, who had filed
      affidavits, would fall under Section 12(1)(a) of the 1986 Act, and
      therefore, there is no need to go into the issue as to whether the case
C     would come under Section 12(1)(b) of the 1986 Act, for the good reason
      that the definition of ‘complainant’ under Section 2(b)(i) of the 1986 Act,
      will include multiple consumers. In such view of the matter, the law laid
      down by this Court in Brigade Enterprises Ltd. (supra) will apply on
      all fours to the case on hand.
D            20. The National Commission in a subsequent decision in Akshay
      Kumar & Ors. v. Adani Brahma Synergy Pvt. Ltd in Consumer
      Complaint No. 48 of 2021 etc., dated 06.03.2023, took note of the aforesaid
      decision on both counts, namely, the right of several complainants having
      same and similar interest in filing a single complaint and computation of
E     pecuniary jurisdiction. The following paragraphs would be of relevance,
               “27. As has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
            Brigade Enterprises (supra), it can be concluded that for filing
            a Complaint under section 35(1)(c) of the Act in Representative
            Capacity the complaint should be filed by one or more consumers
F           on behalf of or for the benefit of numerous consumers having
            same interest.
               28. As in all the aforementioned Consumer Complaints,
            there is no sameness of interest, relying upon the Principle
            laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Brigade
G           Enterprises (supra), permission to file the Complaint in the
            representative capacity under section 35(1)(c) of the Act,
            cannot be granted. Therefore, the Applications seeking
            permission to file the Complaint in the representative
            capacity under section 35(1)(c) of the Act, are rejected.
            However, all the original Complainants in the respective
H
 ALPHA G184 OWNERS ASSOCIATION v. MAGNUM INTERNATIONAL                       873
       TRADING COMPANY PVT. LTD. [M. M. SUNDRESH, J.]


      Complaint Cases can be permitted to file the Joint                     A
      Complaints. Accordingly, the present Consumer Complaint
      Cases are ordered to be treated as Joint Complaints filed
      only on behalf of the Complainants, who have originally filed
      the respective Complaints.
         29. Now, the question arises, whether each of the Complainants      B
      have to pay the consideration of more than 2 Crore or not, so
      that this Commission can entertain their Complaints.
         30. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Brigade
      Enterprises (supra) (in para 35, 36 & 37), that there is
      nothing in the Act, which prohibits the few Complainants               C
      from joining together and filing Joint Complaint. The word
      complaint includes plural i.e., complaints also. Thus, a Joint
      Complaint is maintainable and it will be treated as one-
      complaint.”
                                                     (emphasis supplied)     D

       21. In holding so, the National Commission took note of its earlier
decision in Ambrish Kumar Shukla v. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt.
Ltd. in Consumer Complaint No. 97 of 2016 dated 07.10.2016, which is
reproduced hereunder,
                                                                             E
      “31. xxx                         xxx                     xxx
          (ii) Whether a complaint under Section 12(1)(c) of the
          Consumer Protection Act is maintainable, before this
          Commission, where the value of the goods or services
          and compensation, if any, claimed in respect of none of            F
          the allottees / purchasers exceeds Rupees one crore.
          (iii) Whether a complaint under Section 12(1)(c) of the
          Consumer Protection Act is maintainable before this
          Commission, where the value of the goods or services
                                                                             G
          and the compensation claimed in respect of an individual
          allottee exceeds Rupees one crore in the case of one or
          more allottees but does not exceed Rupees one crore
          in respect of other allottees;

                                                                             H
874      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2023] 5 S.C.R.


A        (iv) Whether a complaint under Section 12(1)(c) of the
         Consumer Protection Act is maintainable, in a case of
         allotment of several flats in a project / building, where
         the allotments / bookings / purchases are made on
         different dates and or the agreed cost of the flat and / or
         the area of the flat is not identical in all the bookings /
B
         allotments / purchases.”
      32. In Para 12 of the Order, the larger Bench had held as under:-
      “12. Issue No. (ii) and (iii)

C     Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is
      relevant provides that this Commission shall have jurisdiction to
      entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and
      compensation, if any, claimed exceeds 1.00 crore. Therefore,
      what has to be seen, for the purpose of determining the pecuniary
      jurisdiction, is the value of the goods or services and the amount
D     of the compensation claimed in the complaint. If the aggregate of
      (i) the value of the goods or services and (ii) the compensation
      claimed in the complaint exceeds 1.00 crore, this Commission
      would have pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
      Similarly, if the aggregate of the value of (i) the goods or services
E     and (ii) compensation, if any, claimed in the complaint exceeds
      20.00 lacs but does not exceed 1.00 Crore, the State Commission
      would have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
      Since a complaint under Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer
      Protection Act can be filed only where there are numerous
      consumers having the same interest and it has to be filed
F     on behalf of or for the benefit of all the consumers so
      interested i.e. all of the numerous consumers having the
      same interest, it is the aggregate of the value of the goods
      purchased or services hired or availed of, by all those
      numerous consumers and the total compensation, if any,
G     claimed for all those numerous consumers, which would
      determine the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission.
      If the aggregate of the value of the goods purchased or the
      services hired or availed of by all the consumers having
      the same interest and the total compensation, if any, claimed
      for all of them comes to more than                 1.00 crore, the
H
ALPHA G184 OWNERS ASSOCIATION v. MAGNUM INTERNATIONAL                       875
      TRADING COMPANY PVT. LTD. [M. M. SUNDRESH, J.]


   pecuniary jurisdiction would rest with this Commission                   A
   alone. The value of the goods purchased or the services
   hired or availed of and the quantum of compensation, if any,
   claimed in respect of the one individual consumer therefore,
   would be absolutely irrelevant for the purpose of
   determining the pecuniary jurisdiction in such a complaint.
                                                                            B
   In fact, this issue is no more res Integra in view of the decision of
   a Four-Members Bench of this Commission in Public Health
   Engineering Department Vs. Upbhokta Sanrakshan Samiti I
   (1992) CPJ 182 (NC). In the above referred case, a complaint
   was preferred, seeking to recover compensation for alleged
   negligence on the part of the petitioner which had resulted in a         C
   large number of persons getting infected by Jaundice. The names
   of 46 such persons were mentioned in the complaint but it was
   alleged that there were thousands of other sufferers who were
   similarly placed and that complaint was filed on behalf of all of
   them. The complainant had sought compensation of 20,000/-
                                                                            D
   for every student victim, 10,000/- for every general victim
   and 1,00,000/- for the legal representatives of those who
   had died due to Jaundice. The District Forum held that it had no
   pecuniary jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the complaint. The State
   Commission took the view that the District Forum has to go by
   the value as specified for each consumer. Rejecting the view taken       E
   by the State Commission, this Commission inter- alia held as under:
      “5. In our opinion this proposition is clearly wrong since under
      the terms of Section 11 of the Act the pecuniary jurisdiction of
      the District Forum would depend upon the quantum of
      compensation claimed in the petition. The view expressed by           F
      the State Commission is not based on a correct understanding
      or interpretation of Section 11. On the plain words used in
      Section 11 of the Act, the aggregate quantum of compensation
      claimed in the petition will determine the question of jurisdiction
      and when the complaint is filed in a representative capacity on
                                                                            G
      behalf of several persons, as in the present case, the total
      amount of compensation claimed by the representative body
      on behalf of all the persons whom it represents will govern the
      valuation of the complaint petition for purposes of jurisdiction”.

                                                                            H
876      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                             [2023] 5 S.C.R.


A        6. The quantum of compensation claimed in the petition being
         far in excess of 1.00 lac the District Forum was perfectly
         right in holding that it had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the
         complaint. The reversal of the said order by the State
         Commission was contrary to law”.
B     Therefore, irrespective of the value of the goods purchased
      or the service hired and availed of by an individual
      purchaser / allottee and the compensation claimed in
      respect of an individual purchaser / allottee, this
      Commission would have the pecuniary jurisdiction to
C     entertain the complaint if the aggregate of the value of the
      goods purchased or the services hired or availed of by the
      numerous consumers on whose behalf or for whose benefit
      the complaint is filed and the total compensation claimed
      for all of them exceeds 1.00 crore.

D     Issue No. (iv)
      13. As noted earlier, what is required for the applicability of Section
      12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act read with Order I Rule
      8 of the Code of Civil Procedure is the sameness of the interest
      i.e. a common grievance of numerous persons which is sought to
E     get redressed through a representative action. Therefore, so long
      as the grievance of the consumers is common and identical relief
      is claimed for all of them, the cost, size, area of the flat / plot and
      the date of booking / allotment / purchase, would be wholly
      immaterial. For instance, if a builder / developer has sold 100 flats
      in a project out of which 25 are three-bed room flats, 25 are two-
F     bed room flats and 50 are one-bed room flats and he has failed to
      deliver timely possession of those flats, all the allottees irrespective
      of size of their respective flats / plots, the date of their respective
      purchase and the cost agreed to be paid by them have a common
      grievance i.e. the failure of the builder/ developer to deliver
G     possession of the flat / plot sold to them and a complaint filed for
      the benefit of or on behalf of all such consumers and claiming
      same relief for all of them, would be maintainable under Section
      12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act. The relief claimed will
      be the same / identical if for instance, in a case of failure of the
      builder to deliver timely possession, refund, or possession or in the
H
 ALPHA G184 OWNERS ASSOCIATION v. MAGNUM INTERNATIONAL                        877
       TRADING COMPANY PVT. LTD. [M. M. SUNDRESH, J.]


      alternative refund with or without compensation is claimed for all      A
      of them. Different reliefs for one or more of the consumers on
      whose behalf or for whose benefit the complaint is filed cannot
      be claimed in such a complaint.”
                                                     (emphasis supplied)
                                                                              B
      22. The following is the ultimate conclusion arrived at,
         “34. It may be mentioned here that the Judgment passed by
      the Three-Member Bench of this Commission in the case of
      Ambrish Kumar Shukla (supra), has been affirmed by a Five-
      Member Bench of this Commission vide Order dated 26.10.2021             C
      passed in “ CC No. 1703 of 2018, Renu Singh v. Experion
      Developers Private Limited” and other connected matters”
      wherein it has been held that the Full Bench of this Commission in
      Ambrish Kumar Shukla & 21 Ors. v. Ferrous Infrastructure
      Pvt. Ltd. I 2017 CPJ 1 (NC), lays down the law correctly on
      the issue relating to pecuniary jurisdiction.                           D

         35. Though, under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986,
      the value of goods or services and compensation claimed
      was to be taken for determining the pecuniary jurisdiction
      of the Consumer Fora but the Principle laid down by the
                                                                              E
      Larger Bench in the case of Ambrish Kumar Shukla (supra),
      would also be applicable for determining the value of goods
      and services paid as consideration in the Complaint where
      the Complaint has been filed as a Joint-Complaint by more
      than one person.
                                                                              F
         36. Admittedly, in the present cases, the value of the
      consideration paid by all the persons who have joined as
      Complainants in the Joint Complaint, exceeds 2 Crores,
      therefore, this Commission has pecuniary jurisdiction under Section
      58(1)(a)(i) of the Act to entertain all the present Joint Complaints.
      Accordingly, it is held that all the present Joint Complaints are       G
      maintainable before this Commission.”
                                                     (emphasis supplied)
    23. In light of the aforesaid exposition of law, which the National
Commission itself took note of in its subsequent decision, the present        H
878             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2023] 5 S.C.R.


A     appeals deserve to be allowed. Complaints have already been registered,
      and in any case, the issue pertaining to registration and the byelaws has
      got no relevancy, particularly in light of the submission made by the
      learned counsel for the appellant that affidavits have been filed by
      individual allottees. A pedantic and hyper-technical approach would cause
      damage to the very concept of consumerism. We further note that even
B
      after five years the appellant is unable to proceed, and the cases have
      not progressed.
            24. In such view of the matter, the impugned orders are set aside,
      and the appeals are allowed. Pending applications, if any, are disposed
C     of. The National Commission shall proceed to hear the matters on merits,
      expeditiously. No order as to costs.


      Nidhi Jain                                                 Appeals allowed.
      (Assisted by : Arjun Narang and Tamana, LCRAs)

D




E




F




G




H