Class Action, Consumer Disputes I

Posted on by Rudrajyoti Nath Ray

Appellant Nos. 1-44 – Builder-Buyer Agreement – Respondent/Builder.

Respondent/Builder, Failed!

Appellant Nos. 1-44, NCDRC, Consumer Complaint.

“National Commission concluded, the case could not be accepted as a class action and dismissed same. The dismissal of the case as class action is questioned. In T.N. Ganapathy, (1990) 1 SCC 608 it was held, persons who may be represented under Order 1, Rule 8 of CPC need not have same cause of action and all that is required for application of said provision is, the persons concerned must have common interest or common grievance. What is required is sameness of interest. Full Bench of National Commission in Ambrish Kumar Shukla, [Consumer Case No. 97 of 2016] relied upon T.N. Ganapathy to hold, oneness of interest is akin to a common grievance against the same person. However, National Commission in instant case, completely lost sight of principles so clearly laid down. Application preferred under Section 12(1)(c) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is held to be maintainable.”

– Hon’ble Justice U.U. Lalit, Anjum Hussain & Ors. v. Intellicity Business Park Pvt. Ltd., [Civil Appeal No. 1676 of 2019].

IC.png

Rudrajyoti Nath Ray's avatar
'The Last Word' seeks to include not only wise and witty sayings but also curiosities. These words are not of obligation but of delight. I am not alone in my refusal to believe, law is tedious. For all who escaped these percipient eyes, mea culpa maxima. History, after all, has many cunning passages, contrived corridors and issues.