Class Action Complaint (Group Complaint) admitted by NCDRC against Piyush Group

[webmaster]

In major relief to buyers seeking legal action against builders who want to file a group complaint, the following case has been admitted by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission against Real Estate Developer Piyush Group.

The Case status can be checked online with Case No. CC/296/2012 at http://cms.nic.in/ncdrcusersWeb/login.d ... caseStatus

The complete order can be read from the attached PDF. Some brief summary from the Court's Order are mentioned below -

Dated : 09 Dec 2016

ORDER

By this order we propose to decide the application under Section 12 (1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking permission to pursue the joint complaint.

This case has a checkered history. The consumer complaint was filed on 8.11.2012. As the complaint was filed on behalf of more than one complainants, an application under Section 12 (1) (c) of the Act seeking permission to pursue the complaint jointly was moved. It appears that the predecessor Bench due to inadvertence did not decide the application nor it was pressed by the complainants. The predecessor Bench, however, admitted the complaint and issued the notices to the opposite parties. The opposite party developers despite of service of notice of complaint filed the written statement after the expiry of period of limitation provided under Section 13 (2) of the Act. The right of the opposite party to file written statement was accordingly closed vide proceedings dated 9.7.2013 and the complainant was directed to file affidavit evidence. The opposite party builder being aggrieved of order of forfeiting its right to file written statement approached the Supreme Court in appeal. Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 11.2.2014 set aside the order of this Commission dated 9.7.2013 and condoned the delay on the part of opposite party No.3 to file written statement and directed this Commission to proceed with the complaint in accordance with law.

When the matter reached at the stage of final arguments, the complainants moved an application under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC in June, 2016. On this it came to light that application for permission under Section 12 (1) (c) of the Act was still pending. Thus, the matter was listed for arguments on application under Section 12 (1) (c) of the Act.

On reading of the aforesaid provision it is clear that one or more consumers can be permitted to pursue a joint complaint provided the case relates to the rights of numerous consumers having the same interest and that the joint complaint has been filed for the benefit of all consumers including the consumers who have not joined the complaint, so interested in the outcome of the complaint. The subject issue was also referred to the Larger Bench of this Commission and the Larger Bench vide its judgment dated 7.10.2016 in the matter of Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors. vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. has answered the issue as under....

On reading of the above finding of the Larger Bench it is clear that more than one consumers can be permitted to maintain a joint complaint provided there is community of interest and the complaint has been filed for the benefit of all such consumers including the consumer who are not party to the complaint and that the complaint has been filed for the benefit of all such consumers so interested. Meaning thereby that permission can be granted in a class action proceedings impinging on the rights of numerous consumers.

In order to find out whether the instant complaint falls within the parameters explained by the Larger Bench we have carefully gone through the prayer clause. On overall analysis of the prayer clause we find that in the instant case the complainants have sought relief on behalf of all the allottees affected by the alleged deficiency in service on the part of opposite party builder. For example in the prayer clause under the title “for delayed possession” the complainants have sought direction to the opposite party No.3 to provide tower-wise schedule of completion and date of handing over of all flats in the subject project. Similarly, under the heading “primary and elementary school” the complainants have sought relief of shifting of primary school from the centre green space being part of 80% green area in the complex for which flat buyers have already paid.

In view of the discussion above, we find this to be a fit case for grant of permission under Section 12 (1) (c) of the Act to pursue the class action complaint. Otherwise also, the complaint is pending since 2012 and at this late stage refusal of permission would be travesty of justice and unfairness to the complainants.

As we have granted the permission under Section 12 (1) (c) of the Act to pursue the complaint jointly, in view of Section 13 (6) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, we direct that public notice under Sub-rule II of Rule 8 of Order 1 CPC regarding institution of the complaint be issued to all the persons so interested in the complaint. The notice be served by way of service in person wherever the addresses of the other persons, so interested, are available and also by way of publication in Hindustan Times (English) and Navbharat Times (Hindi).

List on 20th March, 2017 . Complainants to take steps for issue of public notice.