Revision Petition No. RP/16/206 (Arisen out of order dated 23/05/2016 passed in complaint No. 587/2014 by District Pune). Case: Repton Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ketan Shantilal Jain. Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
| Case Number | Revision Petition No. RP/16/206 (Arisen out of order dated 23/05/2016 passed in complaint No. 587/2014 by District Pune) |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Bhaskar Yogi, Advocate and For Respondents: Prashant Darandale, Advocate |
| Judges | P.B. Joshi, Presiding Member (J) and D.R. Shirasao, Member (J) |
| Issue | Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Order I Rule 8; Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 12(1)(c) |
| Judgement Date | January 06, 2017 |
| Court | Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission |
Order:
P.B. Joshi, Presiding Member (J)
-
Being aggrieved by the order below interim application moved in a consumer complaint No. 587/2014 passed by District Forum, Pune allowing the application, present Revision Petition has been preferred by org. opponents.
-
Facts necessary for deciding this Revision Petition can be stated as under:-
A consumer complaint was filed by one Mr. Ketan Shantilal Jain against M/s. Repton Properties Pvt. Ltd. At the stage of final hearing of the complaint, the complainant moved an application under Section 12(1)(c) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ('the Act' in short) and sought permission to convert the complaint in the representative capacity. Application was opposed by the opponents. Considering the submissions of both parties, District Forum allowed the application. It is against that order present Revision Petition has been preferred by the org. opponents.
-
Considering the submissions made before us and considering the record and scope of the Revision Petition, following points arise for our determination and our findings thereon are noted as against them for the reasons herein below:-
REASONS:-
-
Point No. 1:- Learned Advocate for the petitioners has submitted that the complainant should have filed complaint for and on behalf of all flat purchasers and at that time should have moved an application for permission under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act. Here in the present case, complaint was filed by the complainant/respondent herein as an individual complaint and not on behalf of or for the benefit of other consumers having same interests. As per Section 12(1)(c) of the Act, complaint is to be filed by one or more consumers where there are numerous consumers having the same interest on behalf of or for the benefit of all consumers so interested with the permission of the Fora. Thus, it is clear that the complaint should be filed for and on behalf of all by one or more consumers and along with that permission should be sought from the Fora for such complaint. As mentioned above, present complaint was not filed in such manner, but it was an individual complaint. After appearance of opponents, filing written version and evidence, at the last stage of arguments, an application was moved by the complainant with the prayer that complaint may be allowed to be converted into a representative capacity. There is no provision for converting the individual complaint into a representative capacity. Provision is specifically made in Section 12(1)(c) of the Act that the complaint should be filed by one or more consumers on behalf of all or for the benefits of numerous consumers having same interest. However, permission of the Fora should be obtained for that. Thus, we find that there is not provision for converting individual complaint into a complaint for numerous complainants and that too at late stage.
-
As mentioned in the said application that there are so many flats in the said building, exact number of flats are not mentioned in the application. However, it is mentioned in the order of the District Forum that there are two buildings in the project and there are 120 (One hundred thirty) flats. The complainant in the said application has mentioned that rest of the flat purchasers have not joined as complainants in the complaint. It means other flat purchasers are not ready to become complainants along with this complainant...
To continue reading
Request your trial