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

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.

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...