LexMONU KUMAR & ORS. versus M/S. METROMAX INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
815
MONU KUMAR & ORS.
v.
M/S. METROMAX INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.
(Civil Appeal No. 9963 of 2017)
FEBRUARY 14, 2020
[MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR AND
R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.]
Consumer Protection Act, 1986: s.12(1)(c) – Joint complaint
under s.12(1)(c) by number of consumers having the same interest
– By filing separate application, complainants sought permission
to file a joint complaint – NCDRC passed order dated 27.11.2015
admitting the case and issued notice to opposite party – After having
admitted the consumer case and issued the notice, the impugned
order was passed rejecting the application for grant of permission
to file joint complaint under s.12(1)(c) and consequently rejecting
the complaint – Held: As much as complaint was filed on behalf of
number of individual consumers, an application was filed seeking
permission to file joint complaint and after hearing the arguments,
case was admitted and notice was issued – Though expressly it is
not stated that permission is granted in the application seeking
permission to file joint complaint, but in view of the fact that
admission of the complaint is recorded in order dated 27.11.2015
and notice was issued, the permission is to be read as inherent in
the order of admission – When the specific application was moved
seeking permission for filing joint application and having passed
order of admission by issuing notice on such application, NCDRC
ought not to have rejected the application by impugned order – The
grant of permission is to be read inherently into order dated
27.11.2015 – Matter remitted to NCDRC with direction to consider
the matter afresh and dispose of the complaint case on its own merits.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 9963
of 2017.
From the Judgment and Order dated 09.01.2017 of the National
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at New Delhi in Consumer
Case No. 1361 of 2015.
[2020] 3 S.C.R. 815
815
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
816
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 3 S.C.R.
Basava Prabhu S. Patil, Sr. Adv., Ashwani Kumar, S.P. Kamrah,
Ms. Iti Sharma, Ms. Peeha Verma, Puneet Sharma, Rajesh Mahale,
Shivendra Dwivedi, Syed Faizan Ali, Ms. Tejaswini Misra, Rachit Batra,
Ms. Sunita Sharma, Rohit Vats, Daya Krishan Sharma, Anoop Kr.
Srivastav, Shivkumar Gavalkar, R.N. Pareek, Vipin Kumar Saxena,
Shailesh Madiyal, Sudhanshu Prakash, Kartik Anand, Advs. for the
appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.
1. This civil appeal is filed, by the complainant(s) in Consumer
Case No.1361 of 2015 filed before the National Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission (for short, ‘NCDRC’), aggrieved by the order
dated 09.01.2017.
2. The aforesaid complaint is filed by the appellant Monu Kumar
and 32 others. In the joint complaint, it is alleged that there is deficiency
of service on the part of the respondent-opposite party in respect of
Buyer’s agreement executed between the respective complainants and
the opposite party. As the complaint was filed under Section 12(1)(c) of
the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’), by number of
consumers having the same interest, they sought permission to file a
joint complaint by filing separate application. In the application for
permission to file joint complaint in Consumer Case No.1361 of 2015,
the following order was passed on 27.11.2015 :
“Dated 27 Nov 2015
ORDER
Learned counsel for the complainants present. Arguments heard.
The case stands admitted.
Notice be issued to opposite party returnable on 2.8.2016 with the
direction to the opposite party to file the written version within 30
days from the date of receipt of notice as per Section 13 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Time of 15 days can be extended
by filing an application by the opposite party. In case, the written
version is not filed within the aforesaid period, the right of the
opposite party to file the written version shall stand forfeited.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
817
…………………J
J.M. MALIK
PRESIDING MEMBER
…………………J
DR. S.M. KANTIKAR
MEMBER”
Having admitted the Consumer Case and issued notice, the
impugned order is passed rejecting the application for grant of permission
to file joint complaint under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act and consequently
rejecting the complaint filed.
3. We have heard learned counsels on both sides, perused the
impugned order and other material on record. As much as complaint
was filed on behalf of number of individual consumers, an application
was filed seeking permission tExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.