ALPHA G184 OWNERS ASSOCIATION versus MAGNUM INTERNATIONAL TRADING COMPANY PVT. LTD.

Citation: [2023] 5 S.C.R. 861 · Decided: 15-05-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.K. MAHESHWARI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
861
   [2023] 5 S.C.R. 861
861
ALPHA G184 OWNERS ASSOCIATION
v.
MAGNUM INTERNATIONAL TRADING COMPANY PVT. LTD.
(Civil Appeal No. 4718 of 2022)
MAY 15, 2023
[J. K. MAHESHWARI AND M. M. SUNDRESH, JJ.]
Consumer Protection Act, 1986: ss. 12(1)(a), 13(6) –
Procedure on admission of a complaint – Joint complaint by
numerous consumers without representative capacity – Permissibility
of – On facts, appellant-association of allottees filed numerous
consumer complaints for delayed possession, compensation for the
delay and additional demands raised, against the respondent –
Affidavits filed by the appellant along with the individual affidavits
of the allottees – Writ petition by the respondent which was stayed
by this Court – Nonetheless, the respondent filed complaint before
the District Registrar of Societies that the byelaws of the appellant
association not in conformity with the 2012 Act – Matter referred to
the State Registrar – State Registrar directed the appellants to amend
its bylaws failing which, their registration would be cancelled –
Appeal by the appellants to Registrar General– During the
adjudication before the Registrars, the National Commission
adjourned the proceedings sine die, till the outcome of the appeal
before the Registrar General – Meanwhile the byelaws amended –
On appeal, held: On facts, the allottees do not represent the others
– There is no larger public interest involved – Such complainants
seek reliefs for themselves and nothing beyond – Thus, no question
of compliance of Order I Rule 8 CPC – Definition of ‘complainant’
u/s. 2(b)(i) would include multiple consumers – Members of the
appellant, who had filed affidavits, would fall u/s.12(1)(a) –
Complaints have already been registered – Issue pertaining to
registration and the byelaws got no relevancy – Affidavits have
been filed by the individual allottees –Pedantic and hyper-technical
approach would cause damage to the very concept of consumerism
– Even after five years the cases have not progressed – Thus, the
impugned order set aside – Haryana Registration and Regulation
of Societies Act, 2012.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
862
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 5 S.C.R.
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Consumer Protection Act,
2019 – Object of – Held: 2019 Act facilitates the consumers to
approach the forums by providing a very flexible procedure – 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.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Harsolia Motors, 2023
SCC OnLine SC 409 ; Brigade Enterprises Ltd. v. Anil
Kumar Virmani (2022) 4 SCC 138 – relied on.
Case Law Reference
(2022) 4 SCC 138
relied on.
Para 18, 19
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.4718
of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.03.2022 of the National
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at New Delhi in RA No.52
of 2020 in Consumer Case No.3753 of 2017.
With
Civil Appeal Nos.329-332 of 2023
Narender Hooda, Sr. Adv., Rahul Rathore, Ms. Priyanjali Singh,
Advs. for the Appellant.
Debesh Panda, Vas Dev Verma, Kanishk Aggrawal, Advs. for
the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. M. SUNDRESH, J.
FACTS
1. The appellant is an association formed by the allottees, registered
under Section 6 of the Haryana Registration and Regulation of Societies
Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as “the HRRS Act”) vide certificate
dated 01.11.2017. The respondent herein  is  a  builder  tasked  with  the
development  of  a  housing  project.  Inter  alia alleging that the respondent
has failed in its obligation to construct and complete the promised flats
within the timeline agreed upon, with its failure to pay compensation for
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
863
the delay caused at its instance, and questioning the additional demands
raised, the appellant approached the National Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the National
Commission’) by filing a Consumer Complaint No. 3753 of 2017 initially
on behalf of 54 allottees, and thereafter, a few others. Accordingly,
complaints have been filed in Consumer Complaint No(s). 3751, 3752,
3753 & 3754 of 2017, and 407 of 2018. These complaints are filed by
the appellant on behalf of the named allottees.
2. Consequent to the interim order dated 08.01.2018 passed in
Consumer Complaint No. 3753 of 2017, pleadings were completed
followed by affidavits filed by the appellant along with the ind

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.