ANJUM HUSSAIN & ORS. versus INTELLICITY BUSINESS PARK PVT. LTD. & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 7 S.C.R. 1036 · Decided: 10-05-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARUN MISHRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1036
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 7 S.C.R.
ANJUM HUSSAIN & ORS.
v.
INTELLICITY BUSINESS PARK PVT. LTD. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 1676 of 2019)
MAY 10, 2019
[ARUN MISHRA AND UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.]
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – 12(1)(c) – Appellant no.1
booked office space admeasuring about 440 sq.ft in a project
consisting of residential units, shops and offices launched by the
respondent-Builder – Buyer Agreement was executed – Respondent
was to deliver possession of the office unit within four years – Similar
such Agreements were entered into between the appellant nos.2 to
44 and the respondent in respect of various units from the same
project – Respondent failed to honour its commitments of delivering
possession in four years – Appellants 1 to 44 sought refund of the
amounts paid by them to the respondent along with interest and
compensation also filing application u/s.12(1)(c) of the Act –
National Commission concluded that the case could not be accepted
as class action and dismissed the same – On appeal, held:  According
to the National Commission, though all the appellants had common
grievance that the respondent had not delivered possession of the
respective units booked by them and thus the respondent was
deficient in rendering service, but it was not shown how many of
the allottees had booked the shops/commercial units solely for the
purchase of earning their livelihood by way of self-employment –
In Chairman, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Madras vs. T. N.
Ganapathy it was held by Supreme Court that the provision must
receive an interpretation which would subserve the object for its
enactment – What is required is sameness of interest – It in this light
that the Full Bench of the National Commission in Ambrish Shukla
held that oneness of the interest is akin to a common grievance
against the same person – National Commission in the instant case,
completely lost sight of the principles so clearly laid down in the
said decisions – Approach in the instant case was totally erroneous
– Application preferred by the appellants u/s.12(1)(c) of the Act is
maintainable – Case of the appellants restored to the file of the
   [2019] 7 S.C.R. 1036
1036
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1037
National Commission and be proceeded with in accordance with
law – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.I, r. 8.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 According to the National Commission, though
all the appellants had a common grievance that the respondent
had not delivered possession of the respective units booked by
them and thus the respondent was deficient in rendering service,
it was not shown how many of the allottees had booked the shops/
commercial units solely for the purchase of earning their livelihood
by way of self-employment.  In Chairman, Tamil Nadu Housing
Board, Madras vs. T. N. Ganapathy it was held by Supreme
Court that the persons who may be represented in a Suit under
Order I, Rule 8 of Civil Procedure Code need not have the same
cause of action and all that is required for application of said
provision  is that  the  persons concerned must have common
interest or common grievance. What is required is sameness of
interest.  [Paras 11, 12] [1042-F-H; 1043-A]
1.2 Very same issue was dealt with by Full Bench of the
National Commission in Ambrish Kumar Shukla and Ors. vs.
Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd..  The National Commission relied
upon the decision of this Court in T.N. Housing Board.  It was
observed by Supreme Court in T.N. Housing Board that the
provision must receive an interpretation which would subserve
the object for its enactment.  It is in this light that the Full Bench
of the National Commission held that oneness of the interest
is akin to a common grievance against the same person.
[Paras 13, 14] [1045-B; 1046-H; 1047-A]
1.3 However, the National Commission in the instant case,
completely lost sight of the principles so clearly laid down in the
decisions referred to above. The approach in the instant case
was totally erroneous. The Order under appeal is set aside.
The application preferred by the appellants under Section 12(1)(c)
of the Act is held to be maintainable. Case No.2241 of 2018
is restored to the file of the National Commission and shall
be proceeded with in accordance with law. [Paras 15, 16]
[1047-A-C]
ANJUM HUSSAIN & ORS. v. INTELLICITY BUSINESS PARK
PVT. LTD. & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1038
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 7 S.C.R.
Chairman, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Madras vs. T.
N. Ganapathy (199

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