Skip to main content

Consumer panel explains the difference between joint v/s representative consumer complaints

Background: When similarly situated aggrieved consumers collectively file a complaint, would it be considered a joint complaint or a representative complaint? Some consumer fora are also confused between the two concepts. Many fora refuse to accept a joint complaint unless an application is made seeking permission to do so. This procedure is not correct.

The National Commission has differentiated the two concepts in some of its judgments. When a joint complaint is filed, the relief sought would be applicable only to those who have collectively filed the complaints. Since all these persons are parties to the dispute, no permission is required to file the joint complaint.

But when one or more consumers file a representative complaint, the relief sought is on behalf of all. So, the judgement which is passed in a representative complaint would also bind those who are not a party to the proceedings. Since the judgment would affect unnamed consumers, the forum's permission is required for filing such a complaint.

Case Study: Rajiv Mehta filed a complaint before the Gujarat State Commission alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practices by Anil Textorium in its sales promotion scheme. A member enrolling under the scheme was assured that he would be refunded the membership fee when he enrolled more members.

The State Commission considered that there would be several members interested in this dispute and treated it as a representative complaint filed for and on behalf of all similarly situated persons. Since these were unidentifiable, the Commission directed a notice to be published in the press.

This was challenged before the National Commission, which said the general rule is that all persons interested must be joined as parties to the dispute, because the principle applicable is that the rights of an individual cannot be decided unless he is a party to the proceedings. The exception to this is in case of representative complaints, where one or more file a case for the benefit of all similarly placed persons. Such a representative case can be filed only if the courts grant permission to avoid multiplicity of litigation Thus, representative cases are applicable only in respect of general declaration of rights and not for individual claims for money or compensation. The Commission added that consumers having a common interest can file a complaint together under the Consumer Protection Act. When all the consumers are parties to the complaint, it is not a representative complaint, and so it is not necessary to seek permission of the forum. But when the complaint is filed for and on behalf of unidentifiable consumers, it is a representative complaint, requiring permission. Merely because several persons may be interested in a case's outcome does not turn the complaint into a representative complaint. The test is whether relief sought is in respect of complainants who are before the forum, or generally for all, including those who are not parties to the dispute.

Impact: The National Commission has subsequently even allowed a group of 335 persons to file a joint complaint. When a builder dupes a group of flat purchasers, the group can file a single complaint. This not only helps bring down litigation cost, but also makes an impact to realize the gravity of the complaint.

Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Consumer-panel-explains-the-difference-between-joint-v/s-representative-consumer-complaints/articleshow/33712730.cms

Comments

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t

Vanishing promoters and languishing shareholders

Over Rs 60,000 crore of shareholders’ wealth is stuck in 1,450 companies suspended by the stock exchanges. More importantly, near 100 per cent pledging of promoter holding appears to be common in many of these companies. This, almost rules out any chance of the companies bouncing back. The suspension is for non-compliance of the listing norms. Vanishing Companies - Definition As per the definition stipulated by SEBI, any listed company, which raised moneythrough initial public offer and, thereafter, stopped operations, did not file returnseither with the RoC or SEBI and did not exist on the registered premises wastermed as vanishing.There are provisions under Companies Act under which companies are termedvanishing companies on satisfying certain conditions. it is provided a companywould be deemed to be a vanishing company, if it satisfies all the conditions given below : a) Failed to file returns with Registrar of Companies (ROC) for a period of two years; b) Failed to fil