V. Ramasubramanian JUDGMENT
V. Ramasubramanian, J.
1. Challenging an order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, passed Under Section 35(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, allowing 91 purchasers of 51 apartments in the residential complex developed by them, to file a consumer complaint in a representative capacity, on behalf of and for the benefit of more than about 1000 purchasers, the builder has come up with the above appeal.
2. We have heard Mr. Jayant Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant, Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, learned Senior Counsel for the Respondents and Mr. Omanakuttan K.K., learned Counsel appearing for the intervenors.
3. About 91 persons who purchased 51 residential apartments, in a residential complex comprising of about 1134 apartments, promoted by the Appellant herein, joined together and filed a consumer complaint on the file of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi. The Consumer complaint was accompanied by an application Under Section 35(1)(c), seeking the permission of the National Commission to prosecute the matter jointly, for the benefit of and on behalf of, not only of the 91 applicants, but of numerous other consumers who have purchased apartments in the same complex. In other words the consumer complaint filed by those applicants, who are Respondents herein, is a class action and the permission sought by them was in the nature of a permission that could be granted by the Civil Court in terms of Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
4. Though the builder who is the Appellant herein objected to the application Under Section 35(1)(c), the National Commission allowed the application by relying upon the decision of this Court in the Chairman, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Madras v. T.N. Ganapathy MANU/SC/0117/1990 : (1990) 1 SCC 608 and the decision of the National Commission in Ambrish Kumar Shukla v. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Aggrieved by the said Order, the builder has come up with the above appeal.
5. The main grievance of the Appellant-builder, as projected by Mr. Jayant Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel is that out of total of 1134 apartments constructed and sold by them, the owners of merely 51 apartments have joined together and invoked the jurisdiction of the National Consumer Commission and that such a miniscule percentage of consumers cannot seek to file the complaint in a representative capacity. It is also the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant that there was no commonality of interest or grievance, as some individual apartment owners have also invoked the jurisdiction of the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, seeking redressal of their separate and distinct grievances.
6. However, the contention of Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents/original complainants is that the issue is no longer res integra in view of the decisions of this Court in Chairman, Tamil Nad........