O R D E R (ORAL)

        Challenge in this Appeal by the Complainants is to the order dated 26.4.2017 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal (for short “the State Commission”) in Complaint No. CC/59/11.  By the said order, the State Commission has declined the prayer made on behalf of the Complainants to treat the Complaint as a class action Complaint, as envisioned under Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”).  While rejecting the prayer, the State Commission has observed as follows :

“The materials on record indicate that the complainants have not filed any application for leave of the Commission to file the complaint in a representative capacity in accordance with the provisions of 13(6) of the Act.  It should be noted here that the out of 508 flat owners, only 3 flat owners have lodged the complaint and during the pendency of the proceeding, complainant no.3 Smt. Reena Kumar by filing an application delete her name from the cause title of the petition of complaint with a clear assertion that her grievances against the KWIC has been redressed.

      Under the garb of Section 12(1)(c) or Section 13(c) of the Act which are primarily meant for common services, e.g. facility of lift, deficiency in maintaining common areas or common facilities, complaint regading goods are not maintainable before this Commission particularly, when row houses/duplex were booked for different amount on different dates under different terms and conditions.  If complaint pertaining to deficiency in goods pertaining to many complaints is allowed in one complaint, it will create serious problem as observed by a Larger Bench of Hon’ble National Consumer Commission in the case of Ambrish Kumar Shukla & 21 Ors. (supra).”

        Having addressed the Bench for a while, Mr.Ghosh, learned Counsel appearing for the Complainants submits that the Complainants would be satisfied if they are permitted to file individual Complaints without being non-suited on the plea of res judicata or on the ground of limitation.     

Having regard to the fact that in so far as this Commission is concerned, the scope and purport of Section 12(1)(c) of the Act was clearly explained recently by a larger Bench of this Commission in Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. – 1(2017) CPJ 1, I am of the opinion that the prayer made on behalf of the Complainants is bonafide and deserves to be accepted.

Accordingly, while dismissing the Appeal, I direct that if the Complainants choose to file fresh individual Complaints before an appropriate Forum, they shall not be non-suited on the ground of res judicata or limitation.

Since the Complaint was filed as far back as in the year 2011, the concerned Fora shall try to expedite the final disposal of the fresh Complaints, as and when the same are filed.

The Appeal stands disposed of in the above terms.