JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE, PRESIDING MEMBER Complainant no.1 & 2 Ajay Agarwal and Ms. Shitall Aggarwal jointly booked premises no. 1502 on 14th Floor of Tower 06 in the development project Unitech Verve, Greater Noida undertaken by the opposite party builder located in Sector Pi-II, Greater Noida. 2. Complainant no.3 & 4 Sanjiv Razdan and Ms. Rashmi Razdan jointly booked apartment no. 901, Floor 9, Tower-4 in the project Unitech Verve, Sector Pi-II, Greater Noida. 3. The above said two sets of complainant have filed a joint consumer complaint against the opposite party alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party i.e. failing to deliver possession of the flats within the stipulated time and claimed following reliefs: 1. That the respondent be directed to refund the principal amounts Rs.1,34,02,876/- ( Rs. One crore thirty four lacs two thousand eight hundred seventy six only) of both the set of complainants with simple interest / compensation @ 18% p.a. till the date of payment; b. That in the alternate the flat with completion certificate and tripartite registration be given in habitable condition with interest @ 10% p.a. on the delayed period of about 6-1/2 years be paid along with the cost. c. Final instalment becomes payable only after interest and damages for mental agony and harassment amount as deemed proper is fixed by the hon’ble Commission and is paid to the complainant and cost of this complaint. That any other and further relief in favour of the complainants as the Hon’ble Commission may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. Notice of the complaint was sent to the opposite party vide proceedings dated 09.09.2016. The opposite party as per statement made at the Bar by its counsel Dr. Shweta Bajaj was served with the notice of the complaint on 23.09.2016. The opposite party, however, has failed to file written statement within the stipulated period of limitation. Counsel for the opposite party has raised an oral objection that the instant complaint cannot be proceeded with in view of Section 12 (1) (c ) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the Act). Since the issue goes to the root of the case, we have heard the parties. 5. Dr. Shweta Bajaj, Advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite parties have submitted that instant complaint has been filed by two separate consumers in respect of delay in delivery of possession of the respective flats to the complainants as also numerous other consumers. It is argued that since the complainants have prayed for relief for themselves only, the joint complaint on behalf of two consumers cannot proceed in view of Section 12 (1) ( c) of the Act. 6. Dr. Harish Uppal, Advocate appearing on behalf of the complainants have submitted that instant complaint has been filed in terms of order of this Commission dated 11.03.2016 passed in earlier consumer complaint filed by complainant no. 1 & 2 who had jointly booked apartment no. 1502 on 14th floor of Tower 06 in the development project undertaken by the opposite party. It is further contended that as the grievance of both set of complainants relates to similar question of facts and law, there can be no bar to maintaining the joint complaint by the above noted consumers, namely, complainant no.1 & 2 and complainant no. 3 & 4 who are the joint allottees of the subject flats. 7. We have considered the rival contentions. So far as first contention of learned counsel for the complainants is concerned, the relevant order of this Commission granting liberty to complainant nos. 1 & 2 to file fresh complaint on the same cause of action is reproduced as under: “Counsel for complainant is present. Arguments heard. The counsel for the complainant wants to withdraw this case with the liberty to file this case with a group, making more than Rs.1 crore. Permission is granted. The consumer complaint is dismissed as withdrawn. As prayed, the petitioner is given the liberty to seek appropriate relief as per law.” 8. Perusal of the above order would show that concerned Bench of this Commission granted liberty to the complainant nos. 1 & 2 to seek appropriate relief as per law, which means that complainant nos. 1 & 2 could avail fresh complaint on the same cause of action within four corners of law. Thus, the question is whether this is a fit case in which permission under section 12 (1) (c ) of the Act can be granted? 9. As regards the issue pertaining to grant of permission under section 12 (1) ( c) of the Act is concerned, in order to appreciate contention of the parties, it would be appropriate to have a look on the definition of “complainant”. The term “complainant” has been defined under section 2 (1) (b) of the Act as under: “(b) "complainant" means— (i) a consumer; or (ii) any voluntary consumer association registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (1of 1956)or under any other law for the time being in force; or (iii) the Central Government or any State Government, (iv) one or more consumers, where there are numerous consumers having the same interest; (v) in case of death of a consumer, his legal heir or representative; who or which makes a complaint.” 10. On reading of the above, it is clear that term “complainant” means a consumer, any voluntary consumer association, central or state government, in case of death of consumer his legal heirs and one or more consumers if there are numerous consumers having same interest. Admittedly, instant complaint has been filed by two sets of complainants who are joint allottees in respective of respective flats no. 1502 on 14th Floor of Tower 06 and apartment no. 901, 9th Floor, Tower 4 in the development project Unitech Verve undertaken by the opposite party. Thus, their case if at all it is covered, would fall would fall under section 2 (1) (b) (iv) of the Act. 11. Section 12 (1) of the Act deals with the manner in which complaint shall be made. Relevant provision is reproduced as under: “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 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; (b) any recognised consumer association whether the consumer to whom the goods sold or delivered or agreed to be sold or delivered or service provided or agreed to be provided 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 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.” 12. On reading of the above, it is clear that consumer complaint can be filed by a consumer or any recognized consumer association or the central or the State Government. Section 12 (1) (c ) of the Act deals with the class action and provides that where there are one or more consumers, they can maintain a class action complaint on behalf of themselves and numerous other consumers having same interest on behalf of or for the benefit of all the consumer so interested with the permission of the consumer Fora 13. The issue pertaining to interpretation and scope of Section 12 (1) (c) was referred to Larger Bench of this Commission. The larger Bench of this Commission in the matter of Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. decided on 07.10.2016 while discussing the primary object of Section 12 (1) ( c) of the Act has observed as under: “The primary object behind permitting a class action such as a complaint under Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer 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 benefit of all the persons having such a community of interest. 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 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 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) leaves no doubt that such a complaint must 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.” 14. On reading of the above, it is clear that one or more consumers can be permitted to pursue a class action on behalf of themselves and numerous other consumers provided that they seek relief not only for themselves but for other numerous consumers who may be so interested in the outcome of the consumer complaint. On perusal of the prayer clause, it is clear that above two sets of complainants have sought relief only for themselves and not for other consumers who have booked flats in the subject development project undertaken by the opposite party. Thus, in our view, this is not a fit case for grant of permission under section 12 (1) (c) of the Act. 15. In view of the discussion above, this is not a fit case which can be allowed to be proceeded in terms of Section 12 (1) ( c) of the Act. Complaint is accordingly rejected with liberty to the complainants to avail of their legal remedy on the same cause of action by approaching appropriate forum in appropriate form. | 
