BASAPPA @ MUDAKAPPA vs MRUTUNJAY SEEDS

THIS is an appeal filed by the complainants in Comp. No. 111/94 against the order dated 7.12.1996, rejecting IA No. 1, filed in the said complaint. The necessary facts for the purpose of disposal of this appeal are : 1. Single complaint is filed by four different consumers against common opponents alleging that they have purchased maize seeds in different quantities on 1.6.1993, paying different amounts from dealer, opposite party No. 1, manufactured by opposite party No. 2. The reliefs claimed in the said complaint are, to pass an award holding the respondents jointly and severally for Rs. 2,60,000/-, the damage caused to the complainants with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of purchase of the seeds till realisation of the entire amount, costs of the petition be granted and such other equitable relief/s which the Court deems fit to be granted.

BOTH the opponents filed their reply. In the said reply they, among other objections contended that the complaint filed by four different persons of different places, for different lands, on different cause of action, on different dates and times is not maintainable. They also contended that out of four complainants, three complainants have purchased the seeds at Dharwad and the other complainant has not produced anything to show about the purchase of seeds. They requested the District Forum to dismiss the complaint as not maintainable. Along with the said complaint, the complainants have filed an application under Section 12(c) of the Consumer Protection Act to accord sanction to consider the complaint presented jointly in the interest of justice and equity.

Objections were filed for the said application by the opponents. The District Forum by its order dated 7.12.1996 rejected the application and in consequence of which, the complaint also came to be dismissed. Hence this appeal. While filing this appeal, there was a delay of 59 days. One of the appellants, Sri Vithal Sanna-Ningappa Honagekar has sworn to an affidavit in support of the application. In his affidavit, he has stated that an order was passed by the District Forum on 7.12.1996. Thereafter, the Counsel appearing for them before the District Forum did not communicate the rejection order passed on I.A. No. 1. When he went to Belgaum on 21.2.1997 to enquire regarding the progress of the case, then only he came to know about the result of the application. The Advocate has shown him the office copy which he had written informing about the result. Thereafter he immediately rushed to Bangalore and made arrangements to file the appeal. He has further submitted that they are poor agriculturists. Since the letter written by the Advocate did not reach them, there was delay in filing the appeal. After going through the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay, we are satisfied that there was sufficient cause for condoning the delay. Accordingly, application for condonation of delay is allowed. Delay condoned. In this appeal, the learned Counsel, Mr. M.M. Bellakki, appearing on behalf of the appellants contended that the District Forum was not justified in rejecting the application, consequently dismissing the complaint. He pointed out that the finding of the District Forum to the effect that the complaint does not fall within the purview of Section 12(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, is wholly erroneous and it is unsustainable in law. His further contention was that Section 12(c) of the Act does not contemplate the common cause of action. What is contemplated under Section 12(c) of the Act is one or more consumers having same interest, with the direction of the District Forum can lodge a complaint. According to the learned Advocate, all the four complainants are having same interest and claiming compensation against the respondents in respect of purchase of maize seeds at the same time jointly. On these grounds, he submitted before us that the order passed by the District Forum is liable to be set aside.

WE heard Mr. R. Gopal, learned Counsel on behalf of the respondents. He submitted that it is not a representative suit so as to file a common complaint. According to him, the present complaint will not fall within the purview of Section 12(c) of the Act, since the complainants do not have same interest but they may have similar interest. He pointed out that there is difference between same interest and similar interest and if it is similar interest, each one has to file separate complaint. He has invited our attention to the following decisions : (a) I (1997) CPJ 280, Naresh Chandra Chandrashankar Purani & Ors. v. K.B. Corporation & Ors. (b) III (1997) CPJ 282, Baljit Kaur Dhaliwal & Ors. v. R.J.S. Dhillon & Ors. (c) AIR 1959 Madras 137, Management of Rain Bow Dyeing Factory, Salem & Ors. v. Industrial Tribunal, Madras & Anr. (d) AIR 1977 HP 23, Labsang Khanpa & Ors. v. Sunam Ram. Let us consider the present order in the light of the arguments advanced on both the sides and in the light of the materials available on record. It will be better to quote Section 12(c) of the Act, which reads as follows : Section 12 : Manner in which complaint shall be made : (a) xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (b) xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (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) xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx It will be useful to refer to the definition of complaint found in Section 2(b) : Section 2(b) : "complainant" means- (i) xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (ii) xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (iii) xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (iv) one or more consumers, where there are numerous consumers having the same interest. So, in the definition of ''complainant'' and under Section 12(c) of the Act, the words used are "same interest". In the present case, four complainants have purchased different quantities of maize seeds at different costs to sow in different lands, where they had grown the crops were different and it is a matter of securing different evidence. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that the complainants had "same interest" but they may be having ''similar interest''. In the decision I (1997) CPJ 280, Gujarat State Commission has held as follows : "The complainants, who are members of (sic.) could not have filed a common complaint against the builder and the Co-operative Societies. Mere fact that builder is common does not confer any right on the complainants to file a common complaint. Causes of action are also different and distinct so far as members of four different Co-operative Societies are concerned. The complainants and different causes of action could not have been joined together in one complaint in the manner done by the complainants."

In the decision AIR 1959 Madras 137, we can usefully refer to the following paragraph : "Held, that the interests of thirty concerns although similar were several and distinct and, therefore, each one of them must file a separate writ of certiorari and pay the Court fee. A joint petition by all of them was incompetent."

In the decision AIR 1977 Himachal Pradesh 23, the observation is as under : "Held that it might be that a similar question of law and fact might have been intended to arise in all the transactions, but certainly it could not be a common question of law or fact. The supply made by one plaintiff had no concern with the supply made by the other plaintiff. Each claim depended upon the supply made, shortage detected, rate claimed, payment received, and the price of manure to be deducted. This could be different in the case of each plaintiff and so a common question of law and fact could not be stated to have arisen in all the acts or transactions. Similarly the relief did not arise out of the same act or transaction or series of acts or transactions. Each plaintiff had separate relief under his contact against the defendant. The case did not fall even under Order 2, Rule 3, Civil Procedure Code, although that provision was not quoted in the plaint or in the replication."

The National Commission in a decision reported in II (1991) CPJ 213 (NC)=1991 (10) CPR 435 (NC), Orissa Lift Irrigation Corp. Ltd. & Ors. v. Birakishore Rout & Ors., has held as under : "''Consumer'' under the Consumer Protection Act need not necessarily be an individual but a body of persons bound together by a common purpose can join in a single complaint acting jointly in pursuance of common purpose and have a common cause of action."

AS observed above, in the present case, the cause of action is not common. Just because respondents are common, it does not confer any right on the complainants to file a common complaint. Causes of action are different and distinct and hence could not be filed a joint complaint in the manner done by the complainants. The interests of the complainants concerned although similar are several and distinct and, therefore, each of them must file a separate complaint and a joint complaint by all of them was incompetent. We have gone through the reasons given by the District Forum in rejecting the application and according to us, the District Forum was justified in holding that each complainant had different causes of action. We see no error in the said order. Hence, there is no merit in this appeal. Learned Counsel for the appellant, however, contended that, in case this Commission comes to the conclusion that the order of the District Forum is correct and the appellants could not have filed a single complaint, liberty may be given to the appellants to file separate complaints, and in such case, they can take advantage of these proceedings for the purpose of condonation of delay, if any, so as to bring it within the purview of Section 24A(2) of the Act. It is needless to say that the appellants are at liberty to file separate complaint. They can also take advantage of the period spent in this proceeding for the purpose of limitation as mentioned in Section 24A(2) of the C.P. Act. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed giving liberty to the appellants to file separate complaints. No costs in this appeal. Appeal dismissed.