RAMESHWAR PRASAD SHRIVASTAVA AND ORS.versusDWARKADHIS PROJECTS PVT. LTD. AND ORS.

1118                SUPREME[2018]
                            COURT 14 REPORTS
                                     S.C.R. 1118            [2018] 14 S.C.R.


 A           RAMESHWAR PRASAD SHRIVASTAVA AND ORS.
                                         v.
              DWARKADHIS PROJECTS PVT. LTD. AND ORS.
                          (Civil Appeal No. 5802 of 2018)
 B                            DECEMBER 07, 2018
          [UDAY UMESH LALIT AND R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.]
              Consumer Protection Act, 1986: ss. 2(1)(b)(iv), 12(c) and
       13(6) – Expression in s. 2(1)(b)(iv) “one or more consumers where
       there are numerous consumers having the same interest” –
 C
       Interpretation of – Complaint referable to s. 2(1)(b)(iv) – Application
       of Or. 1 r. 8 – Held: Language used and the text in s. 13(6) is clear
       that wherever a complaint is filed by a complainant in the category
       referred to in s. 2(1)(b)(iv)-one or more consumers where there are
       numerous consumers having the same interest”, the provisions of
 D     Or. 1 r. 8 shall apply with the modification that reference to suit or
       decree shall be construed as reference to a complaint or order of
       the District Forum – Expression “with the permission of the District
       Forum” as appearing in s. 12(1)(c) must be read along with s. 13(6)
       – Sections 12(1)(c) and 13(6) are not independent but are to be
       read together and they form part of the same machinery – Thus, in
 E
       consumer complaints by one or more consumers where there are
       numerous consumers having the same interest, it is mandatory to
       give notice of the institution of the suit to all persons so interested
       in accordance with Or. 1 r. 8 – In view thereof, the National
       Commission rightly held that complaint filed by some of the
 F     allottees was not maintainable since there was no application
       u/s. s. 12(1)(c) – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or. 1 r. 8.
             Disposing of the appeals, the Court
             HELD: 1.1 The expression appearing in sub-clause (iv) of
       Section 2(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 reads “one
 G     or more consumers where there are numerous consumers having
       the same interest”. This very expression finds incorporated in
       sub-clause (c) of Section 12(1) with an addition following said
       expression, namely “... with the permission of the District Forum,
       on behalf of, or for the benefit of, all consumers so interested”.
 H     Section 12(1) thus, in its substantive part says that a complaint
                                        1118
  RAMESHWAR PRASAD SHRIVASTAVA v. DWARKADHIS                         1119
              PROJECTS PVT. LTD.

may be filed with the District Forum by any of the four categories   A
as mentioned in sub-clauses ‘a’ to ‘d’. Since sub-clause (c)
contemplates filing of such complaint, “… with the permission of
the District Forum”. The context and in what manner such
permission is required to be taken in terms of the provisions of
the Act is available in Section 13(6) of the Act which inter alia
                                                                     B
lays down that where the complaint is referable to Section
2(1)(b)(iv), the provisions of Rule 8 of Order 1 CPC, 1908 shall
apply subject to the modification that every reference therein to
a suit or decree shall be construed as a reference to a complaint
or the order of the District forum thereon. The mandate, “shall
apply” is quite significant. [Para 11, 12][1128-B-F]                 C
      1.3 The language used and the text in s. 13(6) is clear that
wherever a complaint is filed by a complainant in the category
referred to in s. 2(1)(b)(iv), the provisions of Order 1 Rule 8
shall apply with the modification that reference to suit or decree
shall be construed as reference to complaint or order of the         D
District Forum. The expression “with the permission of the
District Forum” appearing in s. 12(1)(c) must be read along with
s.13(6) which provides the context and effect to said expression.
Sections 12(1)(c) and 13(6) are not independent but are to be
read together and they form part of the same machinery.
[Para 13][1128-F-H]                                                  E

      1.4 The submission that the expression “one or more
consumers, where there are numerous consumers having the same
interest” may be given widest possible interpretation so as to
make the redressal mechanism easy, cost effective and efficacious,
cannot be accepted as the language employed in the relevant          F
provisions is absolutely clear and does not admit of any other
interpretation. If the submission of the appellants is accepted,
the category of persons referred to in Section 13(6) of the Act,
with the aid of requisite permission in terms of Order I Rule 8
CPC could maintain a class action which may bind similarly placed    G
consumers but those referred to in Section 12(1)(c) would be a
different category who would not be bound by the provisions of
Order I Rule 8 of CPC. In essence a separate category of persons
as consumer/consumers would be entitled to maintain an action

                                                                     H
1120               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2018] 14 S.C.R.


 A     under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act. Certainly that is not the intent.
       If the submission is accepted, it would be going against the
       express mandate of the statute. All that such interpretation would
       help achieve for some consumers is to maintain an action in a
       forum with higher pecuniary jurisdiction where, but for such
       collective cause of action, the action would not lie in such forum
 B
       with higher pecuniary jurisdiction. [Para 14][1129-A-F]
              1.6 The National Commission was justified in holding
       Consumer Case to be not maintainable. The matters were pending
       with the National Commission for more than three years during
       which time the pleadings were exchanged and the evidence was
 C     filed. In the circumstances, though the view taken by the National
       Commission is upheld, the proper course would be to enable the
       appellants to approach the concerned State Commission. If the
       State Commission is so approached, the matter shall not be
       proceeded de novo but from the stage at which it was before the
 D     National Commission. [Para 15, 16][1129-F-H; 1130-A-C]
             Ambrish Kumar Shukla and others v. Ferrous
             Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. I (2017) CPJ 1 (NC) –
             approved.
             The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Madras v.
 E           T.N. Ganapathy (1990) 1 SCC 608 : [1990] 1 SCR
             272 ; Babu Manmohan Das Shah & ors. v. Bishun Das
             (1967) 1 SCR 836 – referred to.
                             Case Law Reference

 F     [1990] 1 SCR 272               referred to            Para 6
       (1967) 1 SCR 836               referred to            Para 14
       (2017) CPJ 1 (NC)              approved               Para 15
             CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5802
       of 2018.
 G
            From the Judgment and Order dated 13.02.2018 of the National
       Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Consumer
       Complaint Case No.250 of 2013.
                                         With
 H           Civil Appeal No. 9162 of 2018.
   RAMESHWAR PRASAD SHRIVASTAVA v. DWARKADHIS                                 1121
               PROJECTS PVT. LTD.

      Ms. Priyanjali Singh, Rahul Rathore, K. K. Shukla, Advs. for the        A
Appellants.
       V. V. Manoharan, Nityanand Singh, Ajay Kumar Talesara, Advs.
for the Respondents.
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                                                                              B
      UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.
       1. These appeals under Section 23 of the Consumer Protection
Act, 1986 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) are directed against the judgments
and orders dated 13.02.2018 and 08.08.2018 passed by the National
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (‘the National              C
Commission’ for short) dismissing Consumer Case Nos.250 of 2013 and
43 of 2014 as not maintainable.
       2. An advertisement campaign was started by the first respondent
sometime in 2006-2007 for sale of apartments in a group housing project
called “Aravali Heights” located at Sector-24, Dharuhera, Haryana.            D
Various interested persons booked their apartments and entered into
builder-buyer agreements. Clause 11 of such typical agreement provided
that the possession would be delivered by the first respondent within
three years. The time specified for delivery thus expired in the year
2010 but no possession was offered within the stipulated time. It appears
that letters were received by various such buyers from April, 2012            E
onwards asking for payment of final instalment connected with delivery
of possession. Various buyers found that the apartments were not
habitable at all and the infrastructure such as roads, water supply,
sewerage, storm water drain, fire fighting system, electricity were not
constructed or made functional. Some of the buyers therefore filed Civil      F
Writ Petition No.25054 of 2014 in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana
which was disposed of by the High Court directing said petitioners to
make appropriate representation to the competent authority. It further
appears that thereafter detailed representations were made and an order
came to be passed by the concerned directorate which was then
challenged by certain allottees by filing Civil Writ Petition No.26358 of     G
2016.
      3. At this stage 19 such allottees came together and filed a joint
complaint being Consumer Case No.250 of 2013 on 06.08.2013 in the
National Commission praying following reliefs:
                                                                              H
1122          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2018] 14 S.C.R.


 A         “1. For delayed possession, this Hon’ble commission may direct
       the Respondent No.1 to provide a tower-wise schedule for
       completion and handing over the possession of all the flats in the
       “Aravali Heights” Multi-storeyed Group Housing Complex) located
       at Sector 21, Dharuhera on the basis of current progress &
       development activities.
 B
          Direct the Respondent No.1 to provide tower-wise construction
       status achieved so far for each tower in the complex with
       corresponding dates of achieving completion and an honest and
       logical tower-wise details/list of unfinished construction tasks and
       corresponding schedule of completion thereof.
 C
          Payment of penalty @ 36 per cent per annum, compounded
       annually (at the prevailing market rate) be imposed on the total
       amount paid to the builder so far by the apartment buyers and be
       directed to be paid immediately or at the time of possession to be
       calculated on the basis explained in the complaint.
 D
          2. Declare that the demand raised by the Respondent No.1 for
       the enhanced/extra EDC by including interest thereon as null and
       void.
           Direct the Respondent No.1 to provide details of the initial
 E     EDC and EDC Charge and Calculations thereof in terms of the
       latest directive/memo issued by the official Respondents including
       the status of its payment by the Builder to the DGTCP – Haryana
       including their payments by the Respondent No.1 to the DGTCP
       – Haryana.

 F        Direct the builder to raise fresh/rectified demand bills/letter
       towards EDC Charges after addressing the stated issues-supra.
       Direct the adjustment of the extra amounts paid by some of the
       Buyers against the EDC with interest @ 24% thereon against the
       fresh computations/bills raised as above.
          Direct the Respondent No.1 to maintain transparency in the
 G
       matter of payment of EDC Charges to the Authorities by displaying
       the status on their Website so as to restore Buyer Confidence.
          3. Direct the Respondent No.1 to refund the open stilt car
       parking charges in the sum of Rs.75,000/- to Rs.1,50,000/- to the
       buyers and the community building membership charges – these
 H
RAMESHWAR PRASAD SHRIVASTAVA v. DWARKADHIS                               1123
   PROJECTS PVT. LTD. [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

  being not saleable and part of common areas and not belonging to       A
  the Respondent No.1
      4. Direct the Respondent No.1 to refrain from raising illegal
  demands of new PLC and immediately withdraw their demand
  letters to customers of some of the units demanding new PLC
  under filmsy grounds.                                                  B
      Direct the Respondent No.1 to refund with 36% interest the
  PLC money claimed from all those consumer/Complainants whose
  flats have ceased to remain Green Facing/falling under PLC of
  Green facing.
     5. Direct the Respondent No.1 to refrain from raising illegal       C
  demands of the additional electricity charges, and to immediately
  withdraw their demand letters to customers of some of the units
  demanding the additional electricity charges under flimsy grounds.
      6. Direct the Respondent No.1 to refrain from raising illegal
  demands of the electricity charges, as the said demand and the         D
  affixation of the electricity charges is unilateral, and any such
  charges towards the electricity are payable when the possession
  is given, and for an amount, which is determined in consultation
  with the buyers.
     7. Direct the Respondent No.1 to refrain from raising illegal       E
  demands of the Maintenance Charges, as the said charges are
  payable when the possession is given to the buyers after
  completing the flat in all respect.
     8. Direct the Respondent No.1 to pay penalty for the mental
  harassment caused to the Complainants @ 10,00,000/- (Rupees            F
  Ten lakhs) per Complainant).
    9. Direct the Respondent No.1 to pay costs towards Legal
  expenditure @ Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) per
  Complainant.
     10. Direct the Respondent No.1 to complete the project and          G
  the flats with all the amenities and facilities including water
  connection, electricity connection, power back up, roads, park,
  parking space, club house, street lighting, sewage drains, rainwater
  drains, firefighting system etc.
                                                                         H
1124                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2018] 14 S.C.R.


 A                  11. Declare the aforesaid legal omissions and commissions as
                 amounting deception, deficiency in service and amounts to unfair
                 trade practice together with monetary compensation/penalty/etc.
                 as prayed in the complaint for the gross mental tension and
                 harassment.”
 B           4. The National Commission issued notice on 23.08.2013,
       whereafter the first respondent put in appearance and filed its written
       statement. After exchange of pleadings, the evidence was also completed.
       After about 20 hearings in the matter, by order dated 25.02.2016 the
       case was fixed for final arguments.
 C            5. On 07.10.2016 a Bench of three Members of the National
       Commission delivered judgment in Ambrish Kumar Shukla and others
       v. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.1 while answering reference made
       to the larger Bench of the National Commission. One of the points
       which was referred to the larger Bench of the National Commission
       was as under:
 D
                 “(i) Whether a complaint under Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer
                 Protection Act filed on behalf of or for the benefit of only some of
                 the numerous consumers having a common interest or a common
                 grievance is maintainable or it must necessarily be filed on behalf
                 of or for the benefit of all the consumers having a common interest
 E               or a common grievance against same person(s)”
              6. After considering the relevant provisions of the Act namely
       Section 2(1)(b) defining the expression “complainant”, Section 12(1) and
       Section 13(6) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (‘The Act’, for
       short) as well as the provisions of Order I Rule 8 of Code of Civil
 F     Procedure (‘CPC’, for short) and a decision of this Court in The
       Chairman, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Madras v. T.N. Ganapathy2
       the larger Bench of the National Commission held as under:
                  “……………The primary object behind permitting a class action
                 such a complaint under Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer
 G               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
       1
           I (2017) CPJ 1 (NC)
 H     2
           (1990) 1 SCC 608
  RAMESHWAR PRASAD SHRIVASTAVA v. DWARKADHIS                                    1125
     PROJECTS PVT. LTD. [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

      benefit of all the persons having such a community of interest. A         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
                                                                                B
      primary purpose 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         C
      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)(d) leaves no doubt that such a complaint must
                                                                                D
      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.
      7. The aforesaid Consumer Case No.250 of 2013 was thereafter
taken up for consideration. The National Commission observed certain            E
factual developments in the matter as under:
      “4. A perusal of the record clearly establishes that at the time of
      filing of this Complaint, no application under Section 12(1)(c)
      seeking permission to file joint Complaint had been filed by the
      Complainants, though there were 19 Complainants in this                   F
      Complaint. Thereafter, an I.A.No.12680 of 2017 has been filed
      by the Complainants seeking amendment of the Complaint. The
      said application also contained an Application under Section
      12(1)(c) of the Act.
      5. Ms. Priyanjali Singh, Advocate for the Complainants at the             G
      time of arguments in this case, on instructions, stated that the
      Complainants did not wish to press I.A.No.12680 of 2017 seeking
      amendment of the Complaint and requested the Complaint should
      be dealt with as filed earlier. Hence, I.A.No.12680 of 2017 was
      dismissed as not pressed.”                                                H
1126                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2018] 14 S.C.R.


 A            8. It was observed that since there was no application under Section
       12(1)(c) of the Act, in view of the decision rendered by larger Bench of
       the National Commission in Ambrish Kumar (supra), the complaint in
       the instant case was not maintainable. The National Commission thus
       by its order dated 13.02.2018 dismissed the aforesaid Consumer Case
       No.250 of 2013 as not being maintainable. Similarly, by order dated
 B
       08.08.2018 the National Commission dismissed Complaint Case No.43
       of 2014 preferred by 4 buyers in respect of same project of the first
       respondent as not being maintainable.
             9. These appeals thus question the correctness of the decisions of
       the National Commission and raise issues concerning maintainability of
 C     the complaints. At this stage we may extract the relevant provisions of
       the Act.
                    “Section 2(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise
                    requires, -
 D                  (a) …       …        …
                    (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
 E
                    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;
 F           (v)   In case of death of a consumer, his legal heir or
                   representative; who or which makes a complaint;
                    Section 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
 G                  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;
 H
  RAMESHWAR PRASAD SHRIVASTAVA v. DWARKADHIS                                  1127
     PROJECTS PVT. LTD. [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

      (b)   Any recognised consumer association whether the consumer          A
            to whom the goods sold or delivered or agreed to be sold or
            delivered or service provided or agreed to be proved 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        B
            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.          C
             Section 13. Procedure on admission of complaint
                                   ………
             (6) Where the complainant is a consumer referred to in
             sub-clause (iv) of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 2,   D
             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 suit or decree shall be construed as a reference to a
             complaint or the order of the District Forum thereon.”
                                                                              E
       10. We heard Ms. Priyanjali Singh, learned Advocate in support
of the appeals and Mr. V.V. Manoharan, learned Advocate for the first
respondent. According to Ms. Singh, the definition of the Complainant
as found in Section 2(1)(b) permits even a voluntary consumer association
to espouse the cause of aggrieved party/parties. In her submission the
expression “one or more consumers, where there are numerous                   F
consumers having the same interest” ought to be given widest possible
interpretation so as to sub-serve the underlying objectives of the Act and
to make the redressal mechanism easy, cost effective and efficacious.
She further submitted that in cases having large number of apartment
holders, if only some of them approach the consumer forum, their
                                                                              G
grievance redressal ought not to be forced to go through the mechanics
of Section 13(6) of the Act read with the provisions of Order 1 Rule 8
CPC. According to her any such insistence would render the remedy
exorbitant as cost required for newspaper publication itself would be
quite prohibitive. On the other hand, Mr. Manoharan, learned Advocate
                                                                              H
1128                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2018] 14 S.C.R.


 A     for the first respondent, submitted that the view taken by the Commission
       in Ambrish Kumar (supra) was correctly and rightly applied by the
       Commission in the present case. He further submitted that such view
       was the only possible view, going by the text of the relevant provisions.
              11. A closer look at Section 2(1)(b) would show that under sub-
 B     clause (i) it is the consumer himself, as aggrieved person who could be
       the Complainant and maintain an action. Under sub-clause (ii), a voluntary
       organization or association may espouse the cause of such aggrieved
       person. Under sub-clause (iii) either the central government or the state
       government may take-up the matter as complainant. We are, however,
       concerned with the expression appearing in sub-clause (iv) which reads
 C     “one or more consumers where there are numerous consumers having
       the same interest”. This very expression finds incorporated in sub-
       clause (c) of Section 12(1) with an addition following said expression,
       namely “….. with the permission of the District Forum, on behalf of, or
       for the benefit of, all consumers so interested”.
 D             12. Section 12(1) thus in its substantive part says that a complaint
       may be filed with the District Forum by any of the four categories as
       mentioned in sub-clauses ‘a’ to ‘d’. Since sub-clause (c) contemplates
       filing of such complaint, “….. with the permission of the District Forum”,
       we will have to see the context and in what manner such permission is
 E     required to be taken in terms of the provisions of the Act. The answer
       is available in Section 13(6) of the Act which inter alia lays down that
       where the complaint is referable to Section 2(1)(b)(iv), the provisions of
       Rule 8 of Order 1 of the First Schedule to the CPC, 1908 (Act 5 of
       1908) shall apply subject to the modification that every reference therein
       to a suit or decree shall be construed as a reference to a complaint or
 F     the order of the District forum thereon. The mandate, “shall apply” is
       quite significant.
              13. The language used and the text in Section 13(6) is clear that
       wherever a complaint is filed by a complainant in the category referred
       to in Section 2(1)(b)(iv), the provisions of Order 1 Rule 8 CPC shall
 G     apply with the modification that reference to suit or decree shall be
       construed as reference to a complaint or order of the District Forum.
       The expression “with the permission of the District Forum” as appearing
       in Section 12(1)(c) must be read along with Section 13(6) which provides
       the context and effect to said expression. In our view Sections 12(1)(c)
 H     and 13(6) are not independent but are to be read together and they form
       part of the same machinery.
      RAMESHWAR PRASAD SHRIVASTAVA v. DWARKADHIS                                1129
         PROJECTS PVT. LTD. [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

       14. It is however submitted that the expression “one or more             A
consumers, where there are numerous consumers having the same
interest” may be given widest possible interpretation so as to make the
redressal mechanism easy, cost effective and efficacious. We are afraid
we cannot accept such contention as the language employed in the
relevant provisions is absolutely clear and does not admit of any other
                                                                                B
interpretation. It was laid down by this Court in Babu Manmohan Das
Shah & ors. v. Bishun Das3 as:-
          “The ordinary rule of construction is that a provision of a statute
          must be construed in accordance with the language used therein
          unless there are compelling reasons, such as, where a literal
          construction would reduce the provision to absurdity or prevent       C
          the manifest intention of the legislature from being carried out.”
       If we accept the submission of the appellants, the category of
persons referred to in Section 13(6) of the Act, with the aid of requisite
permission in terms of Order I Rule 8 of the CPC could maintain a class
action which may bind similarly placed consumers but those referred to          D
in Section 12(1)(c) would be a different category who would not be
bound by the provisions of Order I Rule 8 of CPC. In essence a separate
category of persons as consumer/consumers would be entitled to maintain
an action under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act. In our considered view that
certainly is not the intent. If we accept the submission, we would be           E
going against the express mandate of the statute. All that such
interpretation would help achieve for some consumers is to maintain an
action in a forum with higher pecuniary jurisdiction where, but for such
collective cause of action, the action would not lie in such forum with
higher pecuniary jurisdiction.
                                                                                F
      15. We, therefore, find that the view taken by the National
Commission in the case of Ambrish Kumar (supra) is consistent with
the text of the provisions and is the correct view. The National
Commission, in the present case, was therefore justified in holding
Consumer Case Nos. 250 of 2013 and 43 of 2014 to be not maintainable.
                                                                                G
      16. During the course of hearing we had asked Ms. Singh, learned
counsel if the appellants were willing to proceed with the requirements
under Section 13(6) of the Act and take appropriate steps as mandated
under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC. She, however, responded that the entire
3
    (1967) 1 SCR 836 at page-839                                                H
1130                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2018] 14 S.C.R.


 A     process being prohibitive in terms of cost, her clients were unwilling to
       proceed in that behalf. It must however be noted that the matters were
       pending with the National Commission for more than three years during
       which time the pleadings were exchanged and the evidence was filed.
       In the circumstances, though we uphold the view taken by the National
       Commission, the proper course would be to enable the appellants to
 B
       approach the concerned State Commission. If the State Commission is
       so approached, the matter shall not be proceeded de novo but from the
       stage at which it was before the National Commission. That is to say
       that the matter shall be proceeded with on the strength of same pleadings
       and the evidence laid before the National Commission.
 C          17. With these observations these Civil Appeals stands disposed
       of. No costs.

       Nidhi Jain                                              Appeals disposed of.

 D




 E




 F




 G




 H