RAMESHWAR PRASAD SHRIVASTAVA AND ORS. versus DWARKADHIS PROJECTS PVT. LTD. AND ORS.

Citation: [2018] 14 S.C.R. 1118 · Decided: 07-12-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Disposed off

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1118                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2018] 14 S.C.R.
RAMESHWAR PRASAD SHRIVASTAVA AND ORS.
v.
DWARKADHIS PROJECTS PVT. LTD. AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 5802 of 2018)
DECEMBER 07, 2018
[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.]
Consumer Protection Act, 1986: ss. 2(1)(b)(iv), 12(c) and
13(6) – Expression in s. 2(1)(b)(iv) “one or more consumers where
there are numerous consumers having the same interest” –
Interpretation of – Complaint referable to s. 2(1)(b)(iv) – Application
of Or. 1 r. 8 – Held: Language used and the text in s. 13(6) is clear
that wherever a complaint is filed by a complainant in the category
referred to in s. 2(1)(b)(iv)-one or more consumers where there are
numerous consumers having the same interest”, the provisions of
Or. 1 r. 8 shall apply with the modification that reference to suit or
decree shall be construed as reference to a complaint or order of
the District Forum – Expression “with the permission of the District
Forum” as appearing in s. 12(1)(c) must be read along with s. 13(6)
– Sections 12(1)(c) and 13(6) are not independent but are to be
read together and they form part of the same machinery – Thus, in
consumer complaints by one or more consumers where there are
numerous consumers having the same interest, it is mandatory to
give notice of the institution of the suit to all persons so interested
in accordance with Or. 1 r. 8 – In view thereof, the National
Commission rightly held that complaint filed by some of the
allottees was not maintainable since there was no application
u/s. s. 12(1)(c) – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or. 1 r. 8.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The expression appearing in sub-clause (iv) of
Section 2(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 reads “one
or more consumers where there are numerous consumers having
the same interest”. This very expression finds incorporated in
sub-clause (c) of Section 12(1) with an addition following said
expression, namely “... with the permission of the District Forum,
on behalf of, or for the benefit of, all consumers so interested”.
Section 12(1) thus, in its substantive part says that a complaint
[2018] 14 S.C.R. 1118
1118
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1119
may be filed with the District Forum by any of the four categories
as mentioned in sub-clauses ‘a’ to ‘d’. Since sub-clause (c)
contemplates filing of such complaint, “… with the permission of
the District Forum”. The context and in what manner such
permission is required to be taken in terms of the provisions of
the Act is available in Section 13(6) of the Act which inter alia
lays down that where the complaint is referable to Section
2(1)(b)(iv), the provisions of Rule 8 of Order 1 CPC, 1908 shall
apply subject to the modification that every reference therein to
a suit or decree shall be construed as a reference to a complaint
or the order of the District forum thereon. The mandate, “shall
apply” is quite significant. [Para 11, 12][1128-B-F]
1.3 The language used and the text in s. 13(6) is clear that
wherever a complaint is filed by a complainant in the category
referred to in s. 2(1)(b)(iv), the provisions of Order 1 Rule 8
shall apply with the modification that reference to suit or decree
shall be construed as reference to complaint or order of the
District Forum. The expression “with the permission of the
District Forum” appearing in s. 12(1)(c) must be read along with
s.13(6) which provides the context and effect to said expression.
Sections 12(1)(c) and 13(6) are not independent but are to be
read together and they form part of the same machinery.
[Para 13][1128-F-H]
1.4 The submission that the expression “one or more
consumers, where there are numerous consumers having the same
interest” may be given widest possible interpretation so as to
make the redressal mechanism easy, cost effective and efficacious,
cannot be accepted as the language employed in the relevant
provisions is absolutely clear and does not admit of any other
interpretation. If the submission of the appellants is accepted,
the category of persons referred to in Section 13(6) of the Act,
with the aid of requisite permission in terms of Order I Rule 8
CPC could maintain a class action which may bind similarly placed
consumers but those referred to in Section 12(1)(c) would be a
different category who would not be bound by the provisions of
Order I Rule 8 of CPC. In essence a separate category of persons
as consumer/consumers would be entitled to maintain an a

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