Holding

When the NCDRC admits a consumer complaint and issues notice, permission to file a joint complaint under Section 12(1)(c) is deemed to be granted, and the Commission cannot thereafter reject that permission.

Summary

Monu Kumar and 32 other consumers filed a joint consumer complaint under Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency of service by M/s. Metromax Infrastructure. They sought the Commission's permission to file the joint complaint through a separate application. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) admitted the complaint on 27 November 2015 and issued notice to the opposite party, but later, on 9 January 2017, rejected the permission application and dismissed the complaint. The Supreme Court held that the admission of the case and issuance of notice implicitly granted the permission sought, and the NCDRC could not thereafter reject it. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside and the matter remitted to the NCDRC to decide the complaint on its merits.

Issues considered

Whether admission of a consumer complaint and issuance of notice by the NCDRC implicitly confers permission to file a joint complaint under Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Whether the NCDRC can later reject the permission for a joint complaint after having admitted the case and issued notice.

Legislation cited

Consumer Protection Act, 1986s. 12(1)(c), s. 13

Subjects

Consumer Protection ActJoint complaintSection 12(1)(c)NCDRCPermissionAdmissionSupreme CourtAppeal

Judgment

[2020] 3 S.C.R. 815 815

MONU KUMAR & ORS. A
v.
M/S. METROMAX INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.
(Civil Appeal No. 9963 of 2017)
FEBRUARY 14, 2020 B
[MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR AND
R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.]
Consumer Protection Act, 1986: s.12(1)(c) – Joint complaint
under s.12(1)(c) by number of consumers having the same interest
C
– By filing separate application, complainants sought permission
to file a joint complaint – NCDRC passed order dated 27.11.2015
admitting the case and issued notice to opposite party – After having
admitted the consumer case and issued the notice, the impugned
order was passed rejecting the application for grant of permission
to file joint complaint under s.12(1)(c) and consequently rejecting D
the complaint – Held: As much as complaint was filed on behalf of
number of individual consumers, an application was filed seeking
permission to file joint complaint and after hearing the arguments,
case was admitted and notice was issued – Though expressly it is
not stated that permission is granted in the application seeking
E
permission to file joint complaint, but in view of the fact that
admission of the complaint is recorded in order dated 27.11.2015
and notice was issued, the permission is to be read as inherent in
the order of admission – When the specific application was moved
seeking permission for filing joint application and having passed
order of admission by issuing notice on such application, NCDRC F
ought not to have rejected the application by impugned order – The
grant of permission is to be read inherently into order dated
27.11.2015 – Matter remitted to NCDRC with direction to consider
the matter afresh and dispose of the complaint case on its own merits.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 9963 G
of 2017.
From the Judgment and Order dated 09.01.2017 of the National
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at New Delhi in Consumer
Case No. 1361 of 2015.
H
815
816 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 3 S.C.R.

A Basava Prabhu S. Patil, Sr. Adv., Ashwani Kumar, S.P. Kamrah,
Ms. Iti Sharma, Ms. Peeha Verma, Puneet Sharma, Rajesh Mahale,
Shivendra Dwivedi, Syed Faizan Ali, Ms. Tejaswini Misra, Rachit Batra,
Ms. Sunita Sharma, Rohit Vats, Daya Krishan Sharma, Anoop Kr.
Srivastav, Shivkumar Gavalkar, R.N. Pareek, Vipin Kumar Saxena,
Shailesh Madiyal, Sudhanshu Prakash, Kartik Anand, Advs. for the
B
appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.
1. This civil appeal is filed, by the complainant(s) in Consumer
C Case No.1361 of 2015 filed before the National Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission (for short, ‘NCDRC’), aggrieved by the order
dated 09.01.2017.
2. The aforesaid complaint is filed by the appellant Monu Kumar
and 32 others. In the joint complaint, it is alleged that there is deficiency
D of service on the part of the respondent-opposite party in respect of
Buyer’s agreement executed between the respective complainants and
the opposite party. As the complaint was filed under Section 12(1)(c) of
the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’), by number of
consumers having the same interest, they sought permission to file a
E joint complaint by filing separate application. In the application for
permission to file joint complaint in Consumer Case No.1361 of 2015,
the following order was passed on 27.11.2015 :
“Dated 27 Nov 2015
ORDER
F
Learned counsel for the complainants present. Arguments heard.
The case stands admitted.
Notice be issued to opposite party returnable on 2.8.2016 with the
direction to the opposite party to file the written version within 30
G days from the date of receipt of notice as per Section 13 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Time of 15 days can be extended
by filing an application by the opposite party. In case, the written
version is not filed within the aforesaid period, the right of the
opposite party to file the written version shall stand forfeited.

H
MONU KUMAR & ORS. v. M/S. METROMAX 817
INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. [R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.]

…………………J A
J.M. MALIK
PRESIDING MEMBER
…………………J
DR. S.M. KANTIKAR B
MEMBER”
Having admitted the Consumer Case and issued notice, the
impugned order is passed rejecting the application for grant of permission
to file joint complaint under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act and consequently
rejecting the complaint filed. C
3. We have heard learned counsels on both sides, perused the
impugned order and other material on record. As much as complaint
was filed on behalf of number of individual consumers, an application
was filed seeking permission to file joint complaint and after hearing the
arguments of the learned counsel, case was admitted and notice was D
issued. Though expressly it is not stated that permission is granted in the
application seeking permission to file joint complaint, but in view of the
fact that admission of the complaint is recorded in the order dated
27.11.2015 and notice was issued the permission is to be read as inherent
in the order of admission. When the specific application was moved
E
seeking permission for filing joint application and having passed order of
admission by issuing notice on such application, the Commission ought
not to have rejected the application by the impugned order. The grant of
permission is to be read inherently into the order dated 27.11.2015.
4. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order is set aside,
F
matter is remitted back to the National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, New Delhi with a direction to consider the matter afresh
and dispose of the complaint case on its own merits. The civil appeal is
accordingly allowed with a direction as indicated above.

G
Devika Gujral Appeal allowed and matter remitted to NCDRC.

H