AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THE matter is listed on our today''s board for admission hearing.
THE complainants numbering 11 are flat purchaser of respective flats from the O.P. Builder and they have filed consolidated complaint which is permissible under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, having identical claims. On page No. 16 of the complaint the complainants have furnished particulars of their respective claims where from it is noticed that consideration of each of the flats involved therein is to the extent of Rs. 4 lakhs. The complainants have approached this Commission on the basis of consolidation of the consideration of the 11 flat purchasers to the extent of Rs. 44 lakhs.
As we have held recently in the case of Shri Chandrakant Ramgiri Gosavi and Seven Others v. Haware Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd., in Group of Complaint Nos. 63 to 70 of 2004 decided on 22nd July, 2004, that the complainants when they avail of special provisions made under Section 12(i)(c) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, of benefit of filing a common complaint having identical interest and causes of action for the purpose of valuation of subject matter of the claim for pecuniary limit of jurisdiction same should be done on the basis of individual claim of the consumer and not on consolidated basis of all the consumers joining in filing such common complaint. Inasmuch as this is what we have explained of the legal provisions- Plain reading of the said provision would mean that for the benefit of consumers filing of the complaint having common interest and identical facts is permitted and as is the object of the said Statute, the special benefit is extended to the consumers to avoid their inconvenience of adopting multiplicity of proceedings, which will be easily accessible to them. Further, if the claims of all such consumers having judicial interest is to be consolidated then, the same would go beyond pecuniary limit of jurisdiction, driving them to go to the higher Forum, which would result in adding to their inconvenience and thus defeating the object of the special benefit made to file a consumer complaint, which statute seeks to accord.
IN such matters the prime consideration should be and has to be to notice individual and distinct claim for the purpose of determination of pecuniary limit of jurisdiction of the Fora. This is so because when stage of grant of reliefs would come in the complaint herein, the Forum has to make distinct and separate awards in regard to individual complainant separately. That being so we order return of the complaint to the complainant for presentation before appropriate Forum and the District Forum on such presentation shall accept and entertain the same as consumer dispute being maintainable within its jurisdiction. ORDER 1. We order return of the Complaint No. 82/2004 to the complainant for presentation before appropriate Forum. 2. Office shall return the proceedings in the complaint to the complainant and/or otherwise Representative on 9.9.2004 on which date the complainant shall arrange to receive the proceedings from the office of this Commision. 3. Four weeks thereafter will be available to the complainant to approach appropriate Forum. 4. Office to furnish copies of the order to the parties.
Complaint returned.