Supreme Court allows Joint Consumer Complaints: Alpha G184 Owners Association vs. Magnum International Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. (2023)

Date of the Judgment: May 15, 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 536

Judges: J.K. Maheshwari, J. and M.M. Sundresh, J.

Can a group of flat buyers jointly file a consumer complaint against a builder, or does each buyer need to file separately? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, clarifying the rights of consumers to seek collective redressal. This judgment underscores the importance of protecting consumer interests and ensuring that technicalities do not hinder access to justice. The bench comprised Justices J.K. Maheshwari and M.M. Sundresh, with the majority opinion authored by Justice M.M. Sundresh.

Case Background

The Alpha G184 Owners Association, representing flat buyers, filed a consumer complaint against Magnum International Trading Company Pvt. Ltd., a builder, alleging delays in construction, failure to pay compensation, and additional demands. The association initially filed a complaint on behalf of 54 allottees, and later, several others joined. The builder challenged the association’s registration, leading to a dispute with the Registrar of Societies. This dispute was used by the builder to stall the consumer complaints.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

Initially, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) heard the consumer complaints. However, due to the dispute regarding the association’s registration, the NCDRC adjourned the proceedings indefinitely, awaiting the outcome of the matter before the Registrar General, Haryana. The High Court of Punjab & Haryana did not grant any interim relief on the orders passed by the State Registrar and the Registrar General. The NCDRC adjourned the matter awaiting the decision of the High Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Specifically, the definition of “complainant” under Section 2(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and the manner in which a complaint can be filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are central to the case. The court also considered the provisions of the General Clauses Act, 1897, regarding the interpretation of singular and plural terms.

Section 2(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 defines “complainant” as:

• “(i) a consumer; or”
• “(ii) any voluntary consumer association registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (1of 1956) or under any other law for the time being in force; or”
• “(iii) the Central Government or any State Government; or”
• “(iv) one or more consumers, where there are numerous consumers having the same interest;”
• “(v) in case of death of a consumer, his legal heir or representative; who or which makes a complaint.”

Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 specifies the manner in which a complaint shall be made:

• “(1) A complaint in relation to any goods sold or delivered or agreed to be sold or delivered or any service provided or agreed to be provided may be filed with a District Forum by –”
• “(a) the consumer to whom such goods are sold or delivered or agreed to be sold or delivered or such service provided or agreed to be provided;”
• “(b) any recognised consumer association whether the consumer to whom the goods sold or delivered or agreed to be sold or delivered or service provided or agreed to be provided is a member of such association or not;”
• “(c) one or more consumers, where there are numerous consumers having the same interest, with the permission of the District Forum, on behalf of, or for the benefit of, all consumers so interested; or”
• “(d) the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, either in its individual capacity or as a representative of interests of the consumers in general.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The respondent is deliberately delaying the proceedings and preventing the appellant from seeking legal recourse.
• The pendency of the writ petition regarding the association’s registration has no bearing on the consumer complaints.
• The complaints were filed by individual allottees, and thus, the NCDRC should not have adjourned the matter.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The appellant’s registration is under question, thus the complaint itself is not maintainable.
• Even if an individual complaint is maintainable, it should be filed before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, not the National Commission.
• Since the High Court has not stayed the orders of the State Registrar and the Registrar General, the NCDRC’s decision to adjourn the matter is correct.

Submissions by Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue was whether the National Commission was correct in adjourning the consumer complaints based on a dispute regarding the registration of the appellant association, and whether the complaints could be maintained as joint complaints by multiple consumers.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

• National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Harsolia Motors, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 409 – Supreme Court of India: The court emphasized that the Consumer Protection Act is a social benefit-oriented legislation and should be interpreted constructively in favor of consumers.
• Brigade Enterprises Ltd. v. Anil Kumar Virmani (2022) 4 SCC 138 – Supreme Court of India: The court held that multiple consumers can file a joint complaint, and it is not necessary to file a complaint in a representative capacity under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
• Akshay Kumar & Ors. v. Adani Brahma Synergy Pvt. Ltd in Consumer Complaint No. 48 of 2021 – National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission: The NCDRC took note of the decision in Brigade Enterprises Ltd. (supra) on both counts, namely, the right of several complainants having same and similar interest in filing a single complaint and computation of pecuniary jurisdiction.
• Ambrish Kumar Shukla v. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. in Consumer Complaint No. 97 of 2016 – National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission: This case clarified the pecuniary jurisdiction of the NCDRC and held that the aggregate value of goods and services and compensation claimed by all consumers determines jurisdiction.
• Public Health Engineering Department Vs. Upbhokta Sanrakshan Samiti I (1992) CPJ 182 (NC) – National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission: The court held that when a complaint is filed in a representative capacity on behalf of several persons, the total amount of compensation claimed by the representative body on behalf of all the persons whom it represents will govern the valuation of the complaint petition for purposes of jurisdiction.

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily concerned with ensuring that consumers have access to justice and that technicalities do not hinder the resolution of their grievances. The Court emphasized the social benefit-oriented nature of the Consumer Protection Act and the need for a constructive approach in its interpretation. The Court was also concerned about the delay in resolving the consumer complaints, which had been pending for five years. The court’s reasoning focused on the following key points:

• The Consumer Protection Act is meant to protect consumers and should be interpreted liberally.
• Multiple consumers with similar grievances can file a joint complaint.
• Disputes about the registration of a consumer association should not prevent individual consumers from seeking redressal.
• Consumer complaints should be resolved expeditiously.

Logical Reasoning

Judgment

The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) and allowed the appeals. The Court held that multiple consumers with similar grievances can file a joint complaint under Section 12(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Court also held that the dispute over the registration of the appellant association was irrelevant to the maintainability of the consumer complaints.

The Court emphasized the importance of interpreting the Consumer Protection Act in a way that protects consumers and ensures access to justice. The Court noted that a pedantic and hyper-technical approach would undermine the very concept of consumerism. The Court also expressed concern about the delay in resolving the consumer complaints, which had been pending for five years.

The Court observed:

• “The Consumer Protection Act, 1986…have got a laudable objective…It is meant to encourage consumerism in the country. Any technical approach in construing the provisions against the consumer would go against the very objective behind the enactment.”
• “Upon a conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions, Section 2(1)(b)(i) of the 1986 Act would be interpreted to mean “consumers”…the definition of ‘complainant’ under Section 2(b)(i) of the 1986 Act, will include multiple consumers.”
• “A pedantic and hyper-technical approach would cause damage to the very concept of consumerism.”

Key Takeaways

• Multiple consumers with similar grievances can file a joint complaint under the Consumer Protection Act.
• Disputes regarding the registration of a consumer association do not affect the rights of individual consumers to seek redressal.
• Consumer forums should adopt a constructive approach and avoid technicalities that hinder access to justice.
• Consumer complaints should be resolved expeditiously.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) to hear the matters on merits, expeditiously.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that multiple consumers can file a joint complaint under Section 12(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and that disputes regarding the registration of a consumer association do not affect the rights of individual consumers to seek redressal. This judgment reinforces the pro-consumer stance of the Consumer Protection Act and clarifies the procedure for filing joint complaints, deviating from a hyper-technical approach.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Alpha G184 Owners Association vs. Magnum International Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. is a significant victory for consumer rights. It clarifies that multiple consumers can jointly file complaints, ensuring that technicalities do not obstruct access to justice. The ruling underscores the importance of a consumer-friendly approach in interpreting the Consumer Protection Act and directs consumer forums to resolve complaints expeditiously.