HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL, PRESIDENT

1. This appeal has been filed under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 challenging the order dated 02.07.2019 passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South 24 Parganas ( presently ‘the District Commission’) in connection with consumer case No. CC/06/2018.

2. Heard the Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant. None appeared on behalf of the respondents to argue on behalf of them.

3. Perused the materials on record including, inter alia, the order dated 02.07.2019 of the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission  and the memo. of appeal. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant has urged that the District Commission below erred in passing the order in favour of the complainant. He has further urged that the District Commission below has wrongly dismissed the consumer complaint on the ground of prior permission should not be taken from the Commission while filing a case whereas the petition under section 12 (1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed at the time of filing of the said consumer case along with the complaint petition. It was pointed out by the Learned Advocate of the appellant at the time of admission hearing.

4. He has further urged that the District Commission below has failed to consider that the appellant No. 1 is common party on both cause of action against same opposite parties / respondent No. 1 & 2 herein.

5. He has further urged that Learned District Commission has not applied its judicial mind, rather wrongly dismissed the complaint in spite of knowing the facts that the appellants have same interest against the same person.

6. He has further urged that the Learned District Commission has wrongly held that the appellant did not seek permission at the time of filing the said consumer case.

7. He has further urged that the Learned District Forum should have allowed the complaint case and for the sake of justice, Learned District Forum should have given permission in the last stage when it is apparent from the record that the complainants / appellants have filed the petition under section 12 (1) (c) of the Act seeking permission at the time of filing of the said complaint case. So, the present appeal should be allowed and the impugned order should be set aside.

8. Having heard the Learned Advocate appearing for both the parties and on perusal of the record and the memo of appeal it appears to me that the appellants as complainants filed a petition of complaint being No. CC/06/2018 praying for the following reliefs :-

“i) An order directing the Opposite Parties either to deliver the possession by demarcating and mutate their names before the competent authority in respect of the Schedule – B properties after development of township project with all amenities and / or / to refund the entire consideration money amounting to Rs.7,50,000/- in respect of the Schedule – B properties;

ii) An order directing the Opposite Parties to pay compensation amounting to Rs.5,00,000/- for Unfair Trade Practice and unfair trade practice which caused severe harassment and mental agony to the complainants;

iii) An order directing the Opposite Parties to pay litigation cost amounting to Rs.1,00,000/-;

iv) An order directing the Opposite Parties to pay further interest on consideration amount till realization;

v) An order for appointment of commissioner to inspect the Schedule A and B property;

vi) An order for further cost which the complainants are entitled;

vii) To pay punitive damages to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- to WBCWF;

viii) Any other order or orders the complainants are entitled in law and in equity.”

9. On going through the materials on record including the petition of complaint it appears to me that all the appellants / complainants are not jointly interested in all plots of land and all the appellants / complainants have same interest against the same person.

10. I think that a complaint filed for the benefit of and on behalf of all such consumers and claiming same relief for all of them would be maintainable under section 12(1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The relief claimed will be same and identical.

11. It appears to me that according to the provision of section 12 (1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, a prior permission should be taken from the Commission while filing a case, when no consumer are joined together as  complainants in a single case. But in this case, it is found that though such permission has been taken by the appellants / complainants for filing such joint complaint, non compliance of the above provisions by the complainants seems to have been made, and as such, the complaint is not maintainable in law.

12. Under these facts and circumstances and on perusal of the materials on record and the memo of appeal, I am of the view that the judgment passed by the District Commission calls for no interference by this Commission and, as such, it is liable to be affirmed and the appeal should be dismissed.

13. In the result, the appeal be and the same is dismissed.

14. The appeal is thus disposed of accordingly.

15. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Learned District Commission below for information.