Consumer Complaint On Behalf Of Numerous Consumers Having Same Interest Can Be Filed Only With Permission Of Consumer Forum: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that a consumer complaint on behalf of one or two consumers having same interest can be filed only with the permission of the consumer forum of which the jurisdiction is invoked.

In this case, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission had allowed a complaint filed by Investor Forum Aneja Group.

In appeal, it was contended that the investor forum could not have invoked the jurisdiction of the NCDRC in view of the fact that a complainant in terms of Section 2(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986  means either a consumer or any voluntary consumer association registered under the Companies Act, 1956 or under any other law for the time being in force.

The court noted that the complainant before the NCDRC is neither a voluntary consumer association. It was contended that the complaint is maintainable on behalf of the numerous consumers having the same interest in terms of clause (iv) of Section 2(1)(b) of the Act

'The complaint on behalf of one or two consumers having same interest can be filed only with the permission of the forum of which the jurisdiction is invoked. Since the complainant is neither a voluntary consumer association nor a registered body, nor the permission of the appropriate forum has been sought, therefore, the complaint itself was not maintainable.", the bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian said allowing the appeal.

In this case, the appellant was directed by the NCDRC to pay the amount of certain cheques signed by him along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. "Since the opposite party is a sole proprietorship consultancy of Mr. I.J. Aneja, therefore, the liability of payment of investments would be that of Mr. I.J. Aneja and not of the employees who were engaged by Mr. Aneja at different places such as Nehru Place, NOIDA and Ghaziabad. Since, the complaint itself was not maintainable and the appellant is an employee engaged by the sole proprietorship consultancy, there cannot be any personal liability which can be inflicted upon the appellant by virtue of only being an employee of a sole proprietorship.",the court held in this regard.

Click here to Read/Download Order