Hon’ble Mrs. Soma Bhattacharjee, Member

A/297/2019 has been filed u/s 15 of the C.P. Act, 1986. The appellant challenges the judgment dt. 30.01.2019 passed by Ld. DCDRC, North 24 Parganas in CC/119/2016 dismissing the complaint case against OPs.

          The brief fact of the complaint case being that the complainant Ram Gopal Mukherjee is the Secretary of Maa Monosha Plaza Owners Committee and Sri Biplab Roy is another complainant.

The OPs in the complaint case are Shaw developers represented by Sri Chandrika Shaw, Sri Vinod Kumar Shaw, Sri Sangib Chowdhary. The OPs entered into an agreement for sale with several persons from the month of February, 2010. The OPs assured the complainant and others that the apartment would be completed as per agreement within a very short period. The complainants sent a letter to the OPs requesting him to complete the pending works of the apartment. Among other things the boundary wall of the apartment stood incomplete, which endanger the safety and security of the apartment owners. The OPs did not complete the pending works nor did they provide completion certificate and possession certificate to the flat owners till filling of CC/119/2016.

Since the conduct of the OPs indicated a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, the flat owners filed the complaint case praying for direction upon the OPs to complete the work as per agreement for sale within 3 months, to handover completion and possession certificates along with compensation for mental agony and litigation cost. The OPs neither filed W.V nor evidence on affidavit and the case proceeded ex parte. The Ld. DCDRC heard the argument of the flat owners / complainant and finally dismissed the case on the ground that not all flat owners have filed this complaint petition. Moreover, if the complaint is to be considered to have been filed in a representative capacity then a prior permission had to be taken to file this case, from the DCDRC u/s 12(1)(c) of C.P. Act, 1986. However, no such application for permission had been filed.

Now, the question that arises here is whether the impugned order suffers from any illegality.

Heard the submissions of the Ld. Counsels of the appellant / complainant and OP/ respondents.

 The Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that Sri Ram Gopal Mukherjee is the husband of a flat owner and father of another flat owner. However, no explanation has been submitted regarding the authority of Sri Biplab Roy who is another complainant. He filed a citation from National Consumer Disputes Redressal in Re: Authorised Representative ... vs Unknown on 2 January, 2003, Bench: D W Member, R Rao, B Taimni, ORDER D.P. Wadhwa, J. (President).

To quote from the citation “It may also be noticed that the ‘agent’ as defined in the Central Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 means ‘ a person duly authorised by a party to present any complaint, appeal or reply on its behalf before the National Commission’ and this definition of ‘agent’ is same as in the Rules of Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra.”

The Ld. Counsel of the respondents submitted that Sri Ram Gopal Mukherjee has not been duly authorised by all the flat owners to register the complaint on their behalf. The locus standi of Sri Biplab Roy as a complainant is not clear. The flat owners have not issued  any written authorisation to Sri Ram Gopal Mukherjee to file a complaint on their behalf. Moreover, no approval has been sought from the Ld. DCDRC by the complainants prior to filing the matter in representative capacity u/s 12 (i) (c) of C.P. Act, 1986. Hence, he argued.

Heard both sides. Considered the arguments and documents filed in the record.

As per Section 12 (i) (c) of C.P. Act, 1986 – “one or more consumers, where there are numerous consumers having the same interest with the permission of the District Forum”, on behalf of or for the benefit of, all consumers so interested,” In the case of CC/119/2016, the complainants Sri Ram Gopal Mukherjee and Sri Biblab Roy, have not taken prior leave of the Hon’ble DCDRC North 24 Pgs to file the complaint case on behalf of the flat owners.  

The Memo of Appeal No. 297 of 2019 is found bereft of any substantial merit and is hereby dismissed on contest. The impugned judgment dt. 30.01.2019 passed by the Ld. DCDRC, North 24 Pgs in CC/119/2016 having no illegality, is upheld. Interim stay order, if any, is hereby vacated.

A copy of this order be sent to the DCDRC, North 24 Pgs. Both sides are directed to bear their own costs.

Free certified copies are to be issued to all parties.

A/297/2019 is disposed of accordingly.