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

Partition proceedings are vitiated even if single co-sharer is not made party or is not served in accordance with law

Cause Title :  Bhagwant Singh vs  Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab, Chandigarh,  CWP-2132-2018 (O&M), High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Judgment/Order : 31.08.2022 Corum : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Mittal Background A large parcel of land was owned by the Nagar Panchayat. Thereafter, some of the co-sharers sold their shares to third parties including the petitioners herein. On 22.11.1995, respondents No.3 to 5 filed an application for partition of the land. The petitioners were not impleaded as parties.  On completion of proceedings, sanad was issued on 28.08.1996. Vide two separate sale deeds dated 28.05.2008 respondents No.3 and 5 sold some portion in favour of respondent No.6 and 7. These respondents sought implementation of the sanad resulting in issuance of warrants of possession dated 05.06.2008. Allegedly, it was then that the petitioners realized that joint land had been partitioned and that proceedings h...

Power of Attorney holder can also file cheque bounce cases: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a criminal complaint in a cheque bounce case can be filed and pursued by a person who holds a power of attorney (PoA) on behalf of the complainant. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam gave the "authoritative" pronouncement on the issue, referred to it by a division bench in view of conflicting judgements of some high courts and the apex court. "We are of the view that the power of attorney holder may be allowed to file, appear and depose for the purpose of issue of process for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (which deals with cheque bounce cases)," the bench, also comprising justices Ranjana Prakash Desai and Ranjan Gogoi, said. The bench, in its judgement, said, "...we clarify the position and answer the questions in the following manner: "Filing of complaint petition under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act through PoA holder is perfectly legal...

Christian who reconverts as Hindu SC will get quota benefits

Amid the controversy over “ghar wapsi”, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a person who “reconverts” from Christianity to Hinduism shall be entitled to reservation benefits if his forefathers belonged to a Scheduled Caste and the community accepts him after “reconversion”. Citing articles by B R Ambedkar and James Massey, and reports by Mandal Commission and Chinappa Commission, the court said: “There has been detailed study to indicate the Scheduled Caste persons belonging to Hindu religion, who had embraced Christianity with some kind of hope or aspiration, have remained socially, educationally and economically backward.” The bench of Justices Dipak Misra and V Gopala Gowda held that a person shall not be deprived of reservation benefits if he decides to “reconvert” to Hinduism and adopts the caste that his forefathers originally belonged to just because he was born to Christian parents or has a Christian spouse. Expanding the scope of a previous Constitution benc...