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

Michigan House Approves 'Right-to-Work' Bill

Amid raucous protests, the Republican-led Michigan House approved a contentious right-to-work bill on  Dec 11 limiting unions' strength in the state where the (Union for American Auto Workers)  UAW was born. The chamber passed a measure dealing with public-sector workers 58-51 as protesters shouted "shame on you" from the gallery and huge crowds of union backers massed in the state Capitol halls and on the grounds. Backers said a right-to-work law would bring more jobs to Michigan and give workers freedom. Critics said it would drive down wages and benefits. The right-to-work movement has been growing in the country since Wisconsin fought a similar battle with unions over two years ago. Michigan would become the 24th state to enact right-to-work provisions, and passage of the legislation would deal a stunning blow to the power of organized labor in the United States. Wisconsin Republicans in 2011 passed laws severely restricting the power of public s...

Power to re-assess by AO and disclosure of material facts

In AVTEC Limited v. DCIT, the division of the Delhi High Court held that AO is bound to look at the litigation history of the assessee and cannot expect the assessee to inform him.  In the instant case, the Petitioner, engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of automobiles, power trains and power shift transmissions along with their components, approached the High Court challenging the re-assessment order passed against them. For the year 2006-07, the Petitioner entered into a Business Transfer Agreement with Hindustan Motors Ltd, as per which, the Petitioner took over the business from HML.  While filing income tax return for the said year, the petitioner claimed the expenses incurred in respect of professional and legal charges for the purpose of taking over of the business from HML as capital expenses and claimed depreciation. Article referred: http://www.taxscan.in/assessing-officer-bound-look-litigation-history-assessee-delhi-hc-read-order/8087/

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...