Class Action, Consumer Disputes

Appellant Nos. 1-44 entered Builder-Buyer Agreement with Respondent; Respondent-Builder, failed; Appellant Nos. 1-44 filed NCDRC, Consumer Complaint.

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