Skip to main content

NCLAT - To establish sameness of interest, it is not necessary to establish sameness of the cause of action

In BRIGADE ENTERPRISES LIMITED v. ANIL KUMAR VIRMANI & ORS, appeal was filed before the Supreme Court challenging the order of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) allowing 91 purchasers of 51 apartments in the residential complex developed by them, to file a consumer complaint in a representative capacity, on behalf of and for the benefit of more than about 1000 purchasers. allowed the application by relying upon the decision of this Court in the Chairman, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Madras vs. T.N. Ganapathy (1990) 1 SCC 608 and the decision of the National Commission in Ambrish Kumar Shukla vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 

The main grievance of the appellant-builder, was that out of total of 1134 apartments constructed and sold by them, the owners of merely 51 apartments have joined together and invoked the jurisdiction of the National Consumer Commission and that such a miniscule percentage of consumers cannot seek to file the complaint in a representative capacity. It is also the contention of the learned senior counsel for the appellant that there was no commonality of interest or grievance, as some individual apartment owners have also invoked the jurisdiction of the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, seeking redressal of their separate and distinct grievances.

The Supreme Court observed that a complaint filed under Section 35(1)(c) could either be on behalf of or for the benefit of all consumers having the same interest. Further, Section 38(11) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 makes the provisions of Order I Rule 8 of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 applicable to cases where the complainant is a consumer referred to in Section 2(5)(v), which defines a complainant to mean one or more consumers, where there are numerous consumers having the same interest. The Explanation under Order I Rule 8 is of significance. It distinguishes persons having the same interest in one suit from persons having the same cause of action. To establish sameness of interest, it is not necessary to establish sameness of the cause of action. Since sameness of interest is the pre-requisite for an application under Order I Rule 8, CPC read with Section 35(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, it was necessary for the respondents to include in the consumer complaint, sufficient averments that would show sameness of interest. However, in this matter, the total number of residential apartments constructed in three blocks comprising of about 20 wings (7 wings each in Amber and Blue blocks and 6 wings in Crimson block) were 1134. There are no pleadings insofar as the purchasers of 386 residential apartments in the 7 wings of Amber block are concerned. Even in respect of the owners of the remaining 748 residential apartments in blue block and Crimson block, the complaint does not contain any specific averments regarding sameness of interest. The period of delay in the completion of the project and the handing over of possession, does not appear to be uniform in all 1134 cases. The respondents-complainants cannot project sameness of interest for the purchasers in whose case the period of delay was negligible and those in whose cases there was a huge delay. 

Referring to judgments in Tamil Nadu Housing Board (supra), Rameshwar Prasad Shrivastava & Ors. vs. Dwarkadhis Projects Private Limited & Ors. (2019) 2 SCC 417, Anjum Hussain and Ors. vs. Intellicity Business Park Private Limited and Ors. (2019) 6 SCC 519, Vikrant Singh Malik and Ors. vs. Supertech Limited and Ors., the SC held that the sameness of interest has to be tested on the basis of the nature of the reliefs claimed and the pleadings that pinpoint the sameness of interest and by that logic the NCLAT could not have granted permission to the respondents in this case, to file the complaint in a representative capacity for and on behalf of the owners of all the 1134 flats. 


Comments

Post a Comment

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...
7 comments
Read more

When debt is bona fide disputed and the defence is a substantial one, the court will not wind up the company

In SHITAL FIBERS LTD.  vs  INDIAN ACRYLICS LIMITED, as per the respondent, appellant had made a payment of Rs.61,83,218/­. However, there was an outstanding balance of Rs.8,92,723/­ as on 28.7.2008. Since despite repeated requests, balance amount was not paid, the respondent issued a statutory notice to the appellant. The same was duly responded to. As the payment was not made despite notice being duly served on the appellant, the respondent filed the aforesaid Company Petition seeking winding up of the present appellant for its inability to pay admitted debts. The learned Company Judge vide order dated 28.9.2015 admitted the Company Petition. However, while doing so, the learned Company Judge observed, that since the appellant was an on­going concern, an opportunity should be granted to it to settle the accounts with the respondent by 31.12.2015. Only in case of failure of the settlement, the citation was directed to be published. On appeal, the Division Bench of the High Cou...
Post a Comment
Read more

Abusing in-laws a ground for divorce: SC

Abusing in-laws and not allowing them to reside in the matrimonial home by a woman amounts to cruelty to her spouse, ground enough for grant of divorce, the Supreme Court has ruled while allowing an NRI's plea for legal separation from his wife. A bench of Justices Vikaramajit Sen and A M Sapre said such incidents could not be termed as "wear and tear" of family life as held by Madras High Court which had said that a couple must be prepared to face such situations in matrimonial relationship. The NRI had filed a divorce petition alleging that his wife was abusive to his family members and did not allow his parents and siblings to stay in his house when they visited the US. Referring to an incident, the husband told the court that his wife had once locked him and his sister out of the house and abused them saying they belonged to a 'prostitute family'. She refused to allow her sister-in-law to enter the house and even lodged a police complaint against her hu...
4 comments
Read more