BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

                                                                   Complaint Case No.21/2018.

                                                                   Date of Instt:09.01.2018.

                                                                   Date of Decision:28.08.2019.

                             Kirpal Singh etc. Versus OBC etc.

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Present:      Shri Vikram Singh Multani, Advocate for the complainants.

                   Shri Sudeep Malik, Advocate for the OPs No.1 & 2.

                   Shri C.L. Uppal, Advocate for the OP No.3.

                   Smt. Ruchika, SA for the OPs No.4 & 5.

                    Today the case is fixed for order on the application moved by ld. counsel for the complainants under Section 12 (1)(c) of C.P.Act, 1986.  However, 5 complainants filed this complaint jointly and the complainants also filed an application under Section 12(1)© of C.P.Act with the main complaint.  At the time of arguments, the Ops have taken the preliminary objection that the joint complaint is not maintainable because all the complainants have their separate cause of action and all the complainants are not having joint interest.  On the other hand, ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that he has already filed an application under Section 12(1)(c) of C.P.Act and prayed for giving the permission to file the joint complaint.  From perusal of file, it is clear that the complainants have not stressed the above-said application at the time of admission.  On perusal of case file, it is clear that all these complainants have their separate causes of action, separate identity of properties as well as separate loss to their crops. No doubt, village of all complainants are same, but it does not permit the complainants to file a joint complaint.  Ld. counsel for the Ops No.1 & 2 has placed reliance upon the case law cited in 2016(4) CPR page 695 titled as Sarita C. Singh Vs. VXL Realtors Pvt. Ltd., wherein it has been held in para No.4 of this judgment that:-

-2-

“4. On reading of the above, it is clear that permission under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act can be granted to more than one consumers to pursue a joint complaint if the complaint is in the nature of class action in which the relief has been sought also on behalf of other consumers who would be so interested in the subject matter of the complaint.  Perusal of prayer clause in the instant complaint would show that complainants have claimed relief for themselves only.  Therefore, permission under Section 12(1)(c) cannot be granted.  As a consequent joint complaint cannot proceed.” 

The said authority is fully applicable to the facts of instant case.  Hence, the permission under Section 12(1)(c) cannot be granted and joint complaint cannot proceed.  So, this application cannot be looked into consideration at the stage of arguments.  Hence, the present complaint is not maintainable and same is hereby dismissed accordingly.  However, the complainants are at liberty to file separate complaints for their separate cause of actions and in these circumstances, liberty is granted to all the complainants for filing of fresh separate complaints remedies available under the law before appropriate Court/Forum, if so desired.  The period during which the present complaint remained pending before the Forum is exempted in terms of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled “Luxmi Engineering Works Versus PSG Industrial Institute, reported in  1995 (3) SCC, page 583”. File be consigned to record, after due compliance.

Announced:

Dt.28.08.2019.    

                             Member.                         Member.                President.