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

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...

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...