CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1676 OF 2019
ANJUM HUSSAIN & ORS. VS. INTELLICITY BUSINESS PARK PVT. LTD. & ORS.
1
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1676 OF 2019
ANJUM HUSSAIN & ORS. …Appellant(s)
VERSUS
INTELLICITY BUSINESS PARK PVT. LTD. & ORS. …Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Uday Umesh Lalit, J.
1. This appeal under Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act,
1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the
Judgment and Order dated 10.10.2018 passed by the National Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (‘the National
Commission’, for short) in Consumer Case No.2241 of 2018 preferred
by the appellants.
2. The appellant no.1 had booked an office space admeasuring
about 440 sq.ft in a project consisting of residential units, shops
and offices launched by the respondent. The Builder – Buyer
Agreement was executed between the appellant no.1 and the
respondent on 02.12.2013, whereunder the 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
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1676 OF 2019
ANJUM HUSSAIN & ORS. VS. INTELLICITY BUSINESS PARK PVT. LTD. & ORS.
2
the respondent in respect of various units from the same project.
3. Since the respondent had failed to honour its commitments of
delivering possession in four years and as the project was still at
the stage of excavation, Case No.2241 of 2018 was filed by the
appellants 1 to 44 seeking refund of the amounts paid by them to
the respondent along with interest and compensation. An
application under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act was also filed by the
appellants.
4. The first listing of the case before the National Commission
was on 10.10.2018 when the application moved by the appellants
under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act was dealt with by the National
Commission as under:-
1. This complaint has been instituted for
the benefit of entire class of buyers, who
have booked shops/offices in a project
namely “Intellicity” consisting of
residential units, shops and offices at
Greater Noida. The scope of this complaint
is not restricted only to the complainants.
An application seeking permission in terms
of Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer
Protection Act, to institute this complaint
on behalf of all such buyers of commercial
units, being IA/18734/2018, has also been
filed, along with the complaint. It is
alleged that the complainants are consumers
as they had booked small shops/offices for
the purpose of earing their livelihood by
means of self-employment.
1. As provided in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer
Protection Act, the term ‘consumer’ excludes from its
ambit, a person hiring or availing services for a
commercial purpose, unless he can bring his case
within the four-corners of the explanation below
Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. A
person hiring or availing services for the purpose of
earning his livelihood by way of self-employment has
thereby been included in the definition of
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1676 OF 2019
ANJUM HUSSAIN & ORS. VS. INTELLICITY BUSINESS PARK PVT. LTD. & ORS.
3
‘consumer’. Otherwise, a shop/commercial unit is
deemed to be booked for a commercial purpose.
2. Since the scope of the complaint is not restrict only
to the complainants and encompasses all the allottees
of the shops/commercial units, as is specifically
stated in the complaint and is also evident from the
prayers made in the compliant, seeking direction to
the opposite party to refund the amount deposited by
each complainant as well as other allottees along
with interest and compensation, it would be
maintainable as a class action only if it is alleged
and shown that all the allottees of the
shops/commercial units in the above referred project
had booked the same solely for the purpose of the
earning their livelihood by way of self-employment,
meaning thereby that all the allottees intend to work
themselves in these shops/commercial units and the
occupation of the said units by them has to be for
the purpose of earning their livelihood. A careful
perusal of the complaint would show that it is not
even alleged that all the allottees of the commercial
units/shops in the above referred project had booked
the said shops/units solely for the purpose of the
earning their livelihood by way of self-employment.
In the absence of such an averment in the complaint,
no evidence can even be led to prove that not only
the complainants but all the allottees of the
shops/commercial units had booked the same solely for
the purpose of the earning their livelihood by way of
self-employment. Even otherwise, the complainants
cannot know the purpose for which the allottees,
other than the complainants had booked the shops,
commercial units in the aforesaid project. The said
purpose can be in the knowledge only of the concerned
allottees. Therefore, this class action under
Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act on
behalf of not only the complainants but all the
allottees of the shops/commercial units in the
aforesaid project is not maintainable.”
5. The National Commission thus concluded that the case could not
be accepted as class action and dismissed the same. It was however
observed that the dismissal would not come in the way of the
complainants availing such other remedies as would be open to them.
6. The dismissal of the case as class action is questioned in
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1676 OF 2019
ANJUM HUSSAIN & ORS. VS. INTELLICITY BUSINESS PARK PVT. LTD. & ORS.
4
this appeal.
7. We heard Mr. Yash Srivastava, learned Advocate for the
appellants and Mr. Ashutosh Dubey, learned Advocate for the
respondent.
8. Relevant provisions of the Act may be adverted to at the
outset. Sections 2(1)b and 2(1)(d) of the Act define “complainant”
and “consumer” as under:-
(b) “complainant” means –
(i) a consumer; or
(ii) any voluntary consumer association
registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (1
of 1956) or under any other law for the time
being in force; or
(iii) the Central Government or any State
Government; or
(iv) one or more consumers, where there are
numerous consumers having the same interest;
(v) in case of death of a consumer, his
legal heir or representative; who or which
makes a complaint;
(d) "consumer" means any person who
(i) buys any goods for a consideration which
has been paid or promised or partly paid and
partly promised, or under any system of
deferred payment and includes any user of
such goods other than the person who buys
such goods for consideration paid or
promised or partly paid or partly promised,
or under any system of deferred payment when
such use is made with the approval of such
person, but does not include a person who
obtains such goods for resale or for any
commercial purpose; or
(ii) hires or avails of any services for a
consideration which has been paid or
promised or partly paid and partly promised,
or under any system of deferred payment and
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1676 OF 2019
ANJUM HUSSAIN & ORS. VS. INTELLICITY BUSINESS PARK PVT. LTD. & ORS.
5
includes any beneficiary of such services
other than the person who [hires or avails
of the services for consideration paid or
promised, or partly paid and partly
promised, or under any system of deferred
payments, when such services are availed of
with the approval of the first-mentioned
person; but does not include a person who
avails of such services for any commercial
purpose;
Explanation : For the purposes of this
clause "commercial purpose" does not
include use by a person of goods bought and
used by him and services availed by him
exclusively for the purposes of earning his
livelihood, and services availed by him by
means of self-employment;
9. Section 12 of the Act states:
12. Manner in which complaint shall be made
– (1) A complaint in relation to any goods
sold or delivered or agreed to be sold or
delivered or any service provided or agreed
to be provided, may be filed with a District
Forum, by –
(a) the consumer to whom such goods are sold
or delivered or agreed to be sold or
delivered or such service provided or
agreed to be provided;
(b) any recognised consumers association
whether the consumer to whom the goods
sold or delivered or service provided or
agreed to be provided is a member of such
association or not;
(c) one or more consumers, where there are
numerous consumers having the same
interest, with the permission of the
District Forum, on behalf of, or for the
benefit of, all consumers so interested;
or
(d) the Central Government or the State
Government, as the case may be, either in
its individual capacity or as a
representative of interests of the
consumers in general.”
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1676 OF 2019
ANJUM HUSSAIN & ORS. VS. INTELLICITY BUSINESS PARK PVT. LTD. & ORS.
6
10. Section 13(6) of the Act reads as under:
13. Procedure on admission of complaint –
(1) to (5)……….
(6) Where the complainant is a consumer
referred to in sub-clause (iv) of clause (b)
of subsection (1) of section 2, the
provisions of Rule 8 of Order I of the First
Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 (5 of 1908) shall apply subject to the
modification that every reference therein to
a the plaintiff and the defendant shall be
construed as a reference to a complaint or
the opposite party, as the case may be.
11. 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.
12. In Chairman, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Madras vs. T. N.
Ganapathy1 it was held by this Court that the persons who may be
represented in a Suit under Order 1 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. Paragraphs 7 and 9 of the decision were as
under:-
7. On the question of maintainability of the
1 (1990) 1 SCC 608
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1676 OF 2019
ANJUM HUSSAIN & ORS. VS. INTELLICITY BUSINESS PARK PVT. LTD. & ORS.
7
suit in a representative capacity under
Order I, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, it has been contended that since
the injury complained of is in regard to
demand of money and that too by a separate
demand against each of the allottees, giving
rise to different causes of action, Rule 1
has no application. The learned counsel
proceeded to say that it is not known
whether each of the allottees in Ashok Nagar
had been even served with an additional
demand before the suit was filed; and
further emphasised that those who had been
so served are interested in defeating only
the demand individually referable to each of
them. Each one of them is not interested in
what happens to the others. It is,
therefore, suggested that only such of the
allottees who have already been served with
additional demands are entitled to maintain
an action in court, and they also should do
it by filing separate suits. We do not find
any merit in the argument. The provisions of
Order I of Rule 8 have been included in the
Code in the public interest so as to avoid
multiplicity of litigation. The condition
necessary for application of the provisions
is that the persons on whose behalf the suit
is being brought must have the same
interest. In other words either the interest
must be common or they must have a common
grievance which they seek to get redressed.
In Kodia Goundar v. Velandi Goundar (ILR
1955 Mad 339: AIR 1955 Mad 281) a Full Bench
of the Madras High Court observed that on
the plain language of Order I Rule 8, the
principal requirement to bring a suit within
that rule is the sameness of interest of the
numerous persons on whose behalf or for
whose benefit the suit is instituted. The
court, while considering whether leave under
the rule should be granted or not, should
examine whether there is sufficient
community of interest to justify the
adoption of the procedure provided under the
rule. The object for which this provision is
enacted is really to facilitate the decision
of questions, in which a large number of
persons are interested, without recourse to
the ordinary procedure. The provision must,
therefore, receive an interpretation which
will subserve the object for its enactment.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1676 OF 2019
ANJUM HUSSAIN & ORS. VS. INTELLICITY BUSINESS PARK PVT. LTD. & ORS.
8
There are no words in the rule to limit its
scope to any particular category of suits or
to exclude a suit in regard to a claim for
money or for injunction as the present one.
… … …
9. It is true that each of the allottees is
interested individually in fighting out the
demand separately made or going to be made
on him and, thus, separate causes of action
arise in the case, but, that does not make
Order I Rule 8 inapplicable. Earlier there
was some doubt about the rule covering such
a case which now stands clarified by the
Explanation introduced by the Code of Civil
Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976, which reads
as follows:
“Explanation.— For the purpose of
determining whether the persons who sue
or are sued, or defend, have the same
interest in one suit, it is not
necessary to establish that such
persons have the same cause of action
as the persons on whose behalf, or for
whose benefit, they sue or are sued, or
defend the suit, as the case may be.”
The objects and reasons for the amendment
were stated below:
“Objects and Reasons: Clause 55;
sub-clause (iv), — Rule 8 of Order I
deals with representative suits. Under
this rule, where there are numerous
persons having the same interest in one
suit, one or more of them may, with the
permission of the court, sue or be
sued, on behalf of all of them. The
rule has created a doubt as to whether
the party representing others should
have the same cause of action as the
persons represented by him. The rule is
being substituted by a new rule and an
explanation is being added to clarify
that such persons need not have the
same cause of action.”
There is, therefore, no doubt that the
persons who may be represented in a suit
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1676 OF 2019
ANJUM HUSSAIN & ORS. VS. INTELLICITY BUSINESS PARK PVT. LTD. & ORS.
9
under Order I, Rule 8 need not have the same
cause of action. The trial court in the
present case was right in permitting the
respondent to sue on behalf of all the
allottees of Ashok Nagar. We, therefore, do
not find any merit in this appeal which is
dismissed with costs. Before closing,
however, we would like to point out that the
plaintiff has represented only those in the
low income group in Ashok Nagar who will be
governed by this judgment, and nothing that
has been said or decided in this case is
applicable to any other group or colony.”
13. Very same issue was dealt with by Full Bench of the National
Commission in Ambrish Kumar Shukla and Ors. vs. Ferrous
Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.2. The National Commission relied upon the
decision of this Court in T.N. Housing Board1. Relevant portion of
the decision of the National Commission was :-
“10. Since by virtue of Section 13(6) of the
Consumer Protection Act, the provisions of
the Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC apply to the
consumer complaints filed by one or more
consumers where there are numerous consumers
having the same interest, the decision of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tamil Nadu
Housing Board (supra) would squarely apply,
while answering the reference. The purpose
of giving a statutory recognition to such a
complaint being to avoid the multiplicity of
litigation, the effort should be to give an
interpretation which would sub serve the
said objective, by reducing the increasing
inflow of the consumer complaints to the
Consumer Forums. The reduction in the number
of consumer complaints will be cost
effective not only for the consumers but
also for the service provider.
11..……As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Tamil Nadu Housing Board (supra), the
interest of the persons on whose behalf the
claim is brought must be common or they must
have a common grievance which they seek to
get addressed. The defect or deficiency in
2 Consumer Case No.97 of 2016, decided on 07.10.2016
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1676 OF 2019
ANJUM HUSSAIN & ORS. VS. INTELLICITY BUSINESS PARK PVT. LTD. & ORS.
10
the goods purchased, or the services hired
or availed of by them should be the same for
all the consumers on whose behalf or for
whose benefit the complaint is filed.
Therefore, the oneness of the interest is
akin to a common grievance against the same
person. If, for instance, a number of flats
or plots in a project are sold by a
builder/developer to a number of persons, he
fails to deliver possession of the said
flats/plots within the time frame promised
by him, and a complaint is filed by one or
more such persons, either seeking delivery
of possession of flats/plots purchased by
them and other purchasers in the said
project, or refund of the money paid by them
and the other purchasers to the
developer/builder is sought, the grievance
of such persons being common i.e. the
failure of the builder/developer to deliver
timely possession of the flats/plots sold to
them, they would have same interest in the
subject matter of the complaint and
sufficient community of interest to justify
the adoption of the procedure prescribed in
Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, provided that the complaint is
filed on behalf of or for the benefit of all
the persons having a common grievance
against the same developer/builder, and
identical relief is sought for all such
consumers.
The primary object behind permitting a class
action such as a complaint under Section
12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act
being to facilitate the decision of a
consumer dispute in which a large number of
consumers are interested, without recourse
to each of them filing an individual
complaint, it is necessary that such a
complaint is filed on behalf of or for the
benefit of all the persons having such a
community of interest. A complaint on behalf
of only some of them therefore will not be
maintainable. If for instance, 100 flat
buyers/plot buyers in a project have a
common grievance against the
Builder/Developer and a complaint under
Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection
Act is filed on behalf of or for the benefit
of say 10 of them, the primary purpose
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1676 OF 2019
ANJUM HUSSAIN & ORS. VS. INTELLICITY BUSINESS PARK PVT. LTD. & ORS.
11
behind permitting a class action will not be
achieved, since the remaining 90 aggrieved
persons will be compelled either to file
individual complaints or to file complaints
on behalf of or for the benefit of the
different group of purchasers in the same
project. This, in our view, could not have
been the Legislative intent. The term
'persons so interested' and 'persons having
the same interest' used in Section 12(1)(c)
mean, the persons having a common grievance
against the same service provider. The use
of the words 'all consumers so interested'
and "on behalf of or for the benefit of all
consumers so interested", in Section 12(1)
(c) leaves no doubt that such a complaint
must necessarily be filed on behalf of or
for the benefit of all the persons having a
common grievance, seeking a common relief
and consequently having a community of
interest against the same service provider.”
14. It was observed by this Court in T.N. Housing Board1 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.
15. However, the National Commission in the instant case,
completely lost sight of the principles so clearly laid down in the
decisions referred to above. In our view, the approach in the
instant case was totally erroneous.
16. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the Order under
appeal. The application preferred by the appellants under Section
12(v)(o) 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.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1676 OF 2019
ANJUM HUSSAIN & ORS. VS. INTELLICITY BUSINESS PARK PVT. LTD. & ORS.
12
17. The appeal is allowed in aforesaid terms. No costs.
..…..……………….J.
(Arun Mishra)
..…………………….J.
(Uday Umesh Lalit)
New Delhi;
May 10, 2019.
ANJUM HUSSAIN & ORS. VS. INTELLICITY BUSINESS PARK PVT. LTD. & ORS.
1
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1676 OF 2019
ANJUM HUSSAIN & ORS. …Appellant(s)
VERSUS
INTELLICITY BUSINESS PARK PVT. LTD. & ORS. …Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Uday Umesh Lalit, J.
1. This appeal under Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act,
1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the
Judgment and Order dated 10.10.2018 passed by the National Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (‘the National
Commission’, for short) in Consumer Case No.2241 of 2018 preferred
by the appellants.
2. The appellant no.1 had booked an office space admeasuring
about 440 sq.ft in a project consisting of residential units, shops
and offices launched by the respondent. The Builder – Buyer
Agreement was executed between the appellant no.1 and the
respondent on 02.12.2013, whereunder the 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
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1676 OF 2019
ANJUM HUSSAIN & ORS. VS. INTELLICITY BUSINESS PARK PVT. LTD. & ORS.
2
the respondent in respect of various units from the same project.
3. Since the respondent had failed to honour its commitments of
delivering possession in four years and as the project was still at
the stage of excavation, Case No.2241 of 2018 was filed by the
appellants 1 to 44 seeking refund of the amounts paid by them to
the respondent along with interest and compensation. An
application under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act was also filed by the
appellants.
4. The first listing of the case before the National Commission
was on 10.10.2018 when the application moved by the appellants
under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act was dealt with by the National
Commission as under:-
1. This complaint has been instituted for
the benefit of entire class of buyers, who
have booked shops/offices in a project
namely “Intellicity” consisting of
residential units, shops and offices at
Greater Noida. The scope of this complaint
is not restricted only to the complainants.
An application seeking permission in terms
of Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer
Protection Act, to institute this complaint
on behalf of all such buyers of commercial
units, being IA/18734/2018, has also been
filed, along with the complaint. It is
alleged that the complainants are consumers
as they had booked small shops/offices for
the purpose of earing their livelihood by
means of self-employment.
1. As provided in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer
Protection Act, the term ‘consumer’ excludes from its
ambit, a person hiring or availing services for a
commercial purpose, unless he can bring his case
within the four-corners of the explanation below
Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. A
person hiring or availing services for the purpose of
earning his livelihood by way of self-employment has
thereby been included in the definition of
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1676 OF 2019
ANJUM HUSSAIN & ORS. VS. INTELLICITY BUSINESS PARK PVT. LTD. & ORS.
3
‘consumer’. Otherwise, a shop/commercial unit is
deemed to be booked for a commercial purpose.
2. Since the scope of the complaint is not restrict only
to the complainants and encompasses all the allottees
of the shops/commercial units, as is specifically
stated in the complaint and is also evident from the
prayers made in the compliant, seeking direction to
the opposite party to refund the amount deposited by
each complainant as well as other allottees along
with interest and compensation, it would be
maintainable as a class action only if it is alleged
and shown that all the allottees of the
shops/commercial units in the above referred project
had booked the same solely for the purpose of the
earning their livelihood by way of self-employment,
meaning thereby that all the allottees intend to work
themselves in these shops/commercial units and the
occupation of the said units by them has to be for
the purpose of earning their livelihood. A careful
perusal of the complaint would show that it is not
even alleged that all the allottees of the commercial
units/shops in the above referred project had booked
the said shops/units solely for the purpose of the
earning their livelihood by way of self-employment.
In the absence of such an averment in the complaint,
no evidence can even be led to prove that not only
the complainants but all the allottees of the
shops/commercial units had booked the same solely for
the purpose of the earning their livelihood by way of
self-employment. Even otherwise, the complainants
cannot know the purpose for which the allottees,
other than the complainants had booked the shops,
commercial units in the aforesaid project. The said
purpose can be in the knowledge only of the concerned
allottees. Therefore, this class action under
Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act on
behalf of not only the complainants but all the
allottees of the shops/commercial units in the
aforesaid project is not maintainable.”
5. The National Commission thus concluded that the case could not
be accepted as class action and dismissed the same. It was however
observed that the dismissal would not come in the way of the
complainants availing such other remedies as would be open to them.
6. The dismissal of the case as class action is questioned in
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1676 OF 2019
ANJUM HUSSAIN & ORS. VS. INTELLICITY BUSINESS PARK PVT. LTD. & ORS.
4
this appeal.
7. We heard Mr. Yash Srivastava, learned Advocate for the
appellants and Mr. Ashutosh Dubey, learned Advocate for the
respondent.
8. Relevant provisions of the Act may be adverted to at the
outset. Sections 2(1)b and 2(1)(d) of the Act define “complainant”
and “consumer” as under:-
(b) “complainant” means –
(i) a consumer; or
(ii) any voluntary consumer association
registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (1
of 1956) or under any other law for the time
being in force; or
(iii) the Central Government or any State
Government; or
(iv) one or more consumers, where there are
numerous consumers having the same interest;
(v) in case of death of a consumer, his
legal heir or representative; who or which
makes a complaint;
(d) "consumer" means any person who
(i) buys any goods for a consideration which
has been paid or promised or partly paid and
partly promised, or under any system of
deferred payment and includes any user of
such goods other than the person who buys
such goods for consideration paid or
promised or partly paid or partly promised,
or under any system of deferred payment when
such use is made with the approval of such
person, but does not include a person who
obtains such goods for resale or for any
commercial purpose; or
(ii) hires or avails of any services for a
consideration which has been paid or
promised or partly paid and partly promised,
or under any system of deferred payment and
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1676 OF 2019
ANJUM HUSSAIN & ORS. VS. INTELLICITY BUSINESS PARK PVT. LTD. & ORS.
5
includes any beneficiary of such services
other than the person who [hires or avails
of the services for consideration paid or
promised, or partly paid and partly
promised, or under any system of deferred
payments, when such services are availed of
with the approval of the first-mentioned
person; but does not include a person who
avails of such services for any commercial
purpose;
Explanation : For the purposes of this
clause "commercial purpose" does not
include use by a person of goods bought and
used by him and services availed by him
exclusively for the purposes of earning his
livelihood, and services availed by him by
means of self-employment;
9. Section 12 of the Act states:
12. Manner in which complaint shall be made
– (1) A complaint in relation to any goods
sold or delivered or agreed to be sold or
delivered or any service provided or agreed
to be provided, may be filed with a District
Forum, by –
(a) the consumer to whom such goods are sold
or delivered or agreed to be sold or
delivered or such service provided or
agreed to be provided;
(b) any recognised consumers association
whether the consumer to whom the goods
sold or delivered or service provided or
agreed to be provided is a member of such
association or not;
(c) one or more consumers, where there are
numerous consumers having the same
interest, with the permission of the
District Forum, on behalf of, or for the
benefit of, all consumers so interested;
or
(d) the Central Government or the State
Government, as the case may be, either in
its individual capacity or as a
representative of interests of the
consumers in general.”
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1676 OF 2019
ANJUM HUSSAIN & ORS. VS. INTELLICITY BUSINESS PARK PVT. LTD. & ORS.
6
10. Section 13(6) of the Act reads as under:
13. Procedure on admission of complaint –
(1) to (5)……….
(6) Where the complainant is a consumer
referred to in sub-clause (iv) of clause (b)
of subsection (1) of section 2, the
provisions of Rule 8 of Order I of the First
Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 (5 of 1908) shall apply subject to the
modification that every reference therein to
a the plaintiff and the defendant shall be
construed as a reference to a complaint or
the opposite party, as the case may be.
11. 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.
12. In Chairman, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Madras vs. T. N.
Ganapathy1 it was held by this Court that the persons who may be
represented in a Suit under Order 1 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. Paragraphs 7 and 9 of the decision were as
under:-
7. On the question of maintainability of the
1 (1990) 1 SCC 608
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1676 OF 2019
ANJUM HUSSAIN & ORS. VS. INTELLICITY BUSINESS PARK PVT. LTD. & ORS.
7
suit in a representative capacity under
Order I, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, it has been contended that since
the injury complained of is in regard to
demand of money and that too by a separate
demand against each of the allottees, giving
rise to different causes of action, Rule 1
has no application. The learned counsel
proceeded to say that it is not known
whether each of the allottees in Ashok Nagar
had been even served with an additional
demand before the suit was filed; and
further emphasised that those who had been
so served are interested in defeating only
the demand individually referable to each of
them. Each one of them is not interested in
what happens to the others. It is,
therefore, suggested that only such of the
allottees who have already been served with
additional demands are entitled to maintain
an action in court, and they also should do
it by filing separate suits. We do not find
any merit in the argument. The provisions of
Order I of Rule 8 have been included in the
Code in the public interest so as to avoid
multiplicity of litigation. The condition
necessary for application of the provisions
is that the persons on whose behalf the suit
is being brought must have the same
interest. In other words either the interest
must be common or they must have a common
grievance which they seek to get redressed.
In Kodia Goundar v. Velandi Goundar (ILR
1955 Mad 339: AIR 1955 Mad 281) a Full Bench
of the Madras High Court observed that on
the plain language of Order I Rule 8, the
principal requirement to bring a suit within
that rule is the sameness of interest of the
numerous persons on whose behalf or for
whose benefit the suit is instituted. The
court, while considering whether leave under
the rule should be granted or not, should
examine whether there is sufficient
community of interest to justify the
adoption of the procedure provided under the
rule. The object for which this provision is
enacted is really to facilitate the decision
of questions, in which a large number of
persons are interested, without recourse to
the ordinary procedure. The provision must,
therefore, receive an interpretation which
will subserve the object for its enactment.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1676 OF 2019
ANJUM HUSSAIN & ORS. VS. INTELLICITY BUSINESS PARK PVT. LTD. & ORS.
8
There are no words in the rule to limit its
scope to any particular category of suits or
to exclude a suit in regard to a claim for
money or for injunction as the present one.
… … …
9. It is true that each of the allottees is
interested individually in fighting out the
demand separately made or going to be made
on him and, thus, separate causes of action
arise in the case, but, that does not make
Order I Rule 8 inapplicable. Earlier there
was some doubt about the rule covering such
a case which now stands clarified by the
Explanation introduced by the Code of Civil
Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976, which reads
as follows:
“Explanation.— For the purpose of
determining whether the persons who sue
or are sued, or defend, have the same
interest in one suit, it is not
necessary to establish that such
persons have the same cause of action
as the persons on whose behalf, or for
whose benefit, they sue or are sued, or
defend the suit, as the case may be.”
The objects and reasons for the amendment
were stated below:
“Objects and Reasons: Clause 55;
sub-clause (iv), — Rule 8 of Order I
deals with representative suits. Under
this rule, where there are numerous
persons having the same interest in one
suit, one or more of them may, with the
permission of the court, sue or be
sued, on behalf of all of them. The
rule has created a doubt as to whether
the party representing others should
have the same cause of action as the
persons represented by him. The rule is
being substituted by a new rule and an
explanation is being added to clarify
that such persons need not have the
same cause of action.”
There is, therefore, no doubt that the
persons who may be represented in a suit
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1676 OF 2019
ANJUM HUSSAIN & ORS. VS. INTELLICITY BUSINESS PARK PVT. LTD. & ORS.
9
under Order I, Rule 8 need not have the same
cause of action. The trial court in the
present case was right in permitting the
respondent to sue on behalf of all the
allottees of Ashok Nagar. We, therefore, do
not find any merit in this appeal which is
dismissed with costs. Before closing,
however, we would like to point out that the
plaintiff has represented only those in the
low income group in Ashok Nagar who will be
governed by this judgment, and nothing that
has been said or decided in this case is
applicable to any other group or colony.”
13. Very same issue was dealt with by Full Bench of the National
Commission in Ambrish Kumar Shukla and Ors. vs. Ferrous
Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.2. The National Commission relied upon the
decision of this Court in T.N. Housing Board1. Relevant portion of
the decision of the National Commission was :-
“10. Since by virtue of Section 13(6) of the
Consumer Protection Act, the provisions of
the Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC apply to the
consumer complaints filed by one or more
consumers where there are numerous consumers
having the same interest, the decision of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tamil Nadu
Housing Board (supra) would squarely apply,
while answering the reference. The purpose
of giving a statutory recognition to such a
complaint being to avoid the multiplicity of
litigation, the effort should be to give an
interpretation which would sub serve the
said objective, by reducing the increasing
inflow of the consumer complaints to the
Consumer Forums. The reduction in the number
of consumer complaints will be cost
effective not only for the consumers but
also for the service provider.
11..……As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Tamil Nadu Housing Board (supra), the
interest of the persons on whose behalf the
claim is brought must be common or they must
have a common grievance which they seek to
get addressed. The defect or deficiency in
2 Consumer Case No.97 of 2016, decided on 07.10.2016
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1676 OF 2019
ANJUM HUSSAIN & ORS. VS. INTELLICITY BUSINESS PARK PVT. LTD. & ORS.
10
the goods purchased, or the services hired
or availed of by them should be the same for
all the consumers on whose behalf or for
whose benefit the complaint is filed.
Therefore, the oneness of the interest is
akin to a common grievance against the same
person. If, for instance, a number of flats
or plots in a project are sold by a
builder/developer to a number of persons, he
fails to deliver possession of the said
flats/plots within the time frame promised
by him, and a complaint is filed by one or
more such persons, either seeking delivery
of possession of flats/plots purchased by
them and other purchasers in the said
project, or refund of the money paid by them
and the other purchasers to the
developer/builder is sought, the grievance
of such persons being common i.e. the
failure of the builder/developer to deliver
timely possession of the flats/plots sold to
them, they would have same interest in the
subject matter of the complaint and
sufficient community of interest to justify
the adoption of the procedure prescribed in
Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, provided that the complaint is
filed on behalf of or for the benefit of all
the persons having a common grievance
against the same developer/builder, and
identical relief is sought for all such
consumers.
The primary object behind permitting a class
action such as a complaint under Section
12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act
being to facilitate the decision of a
consumer dispute in which a large number of
consumers are interested, without recourse
to each of them filing an individual
complaint, it is necessary that such a
complaint is filed on behalf of or for the
benefit of all the persons having such a
community of interest. A complaint on behalf
of only some of them therefore will not be
maintainable. If for instance, 100 flat
buyers/plot buyers in a project have a
common grievance against the
Builder/Developer and a complaint under
Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection
Act is filed on behalf of or for the benefit
of say 10 of them, the primary purpose
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1676 OF 2019
ANJUM HUSSAIN & ORS. VS. INTELLICITY BUSINESS PARK PVT. LTD. & ORS.
11
behind permitting a class action will not be
achieved, since the remaining 90 aggrieved
persons will be compelled either to file
individual complaints or to file complaints
on behalf of or for the benefit of the
different group of purchasers in the same
project. This, in our view, could not have
been the Legislative intent. The term
'persons so interested' and 'persons having
the same interest' used in Section 12(1)(c)
mean, the persons having a common grievance
against the same service provider. The use
of the words 'all consumers so interested'
and "on behalf of or for the benefit of all
consumers so interested", in Section 12(1)
(c) leaves no doubt that such a complaint
must necessarily be filed on behalf of or
for the benefit of all the persons having a
common grievance, seeking a common relief
and consequently having a community of
interest against the same service provider.”
14. It was observed by this Court in T.N. Housing Board1 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.
15. However, the National Commission in the instant case,
completely lost sight of the principles so clearly laid down in the
decisions referred to above. In our view, the approach in the
instant case was totally erroneous.
16. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the Order under
appeal. The application preferred by the appellants under Section
12(v)(o) 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.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1676 OF 2019
ANJUM HUSSAIN & ORS. VS. INTELLICITY BUSINESS PARK PVT. LTD. & ORS.
12
17. The appeal is allowed in aforesaid terms. No costs.
..…..……………….J.
(Arun Mishra)
..…………………….J.
(Uday Umesh Lalit)
New Delhi;
May 10, 2019.
