'Clever Drafting' Cannot Resurrect Time-Barred Suits: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Vexatious Plaint No Absolute Right To Choose Route For Religious Procession: Bombay High Court Dismisses Plea Against Police Restriction Acquittal In Section 498A IPC Case Does Not Bar Proceedings Under Domestic Violence Act: Chhattisgarh High Court Calcutta High Court Refuses To Allow Amendment Introducing 'Date Of Knowledge' In Tenancy Dispute Allahabad High Court Rejects 'Attempt To Murder' Charge Citing Absence Of Grievous Injury And Fundamental Prosecution Flaws Uttarakhand High Court Quashes Temporary Acquisition Of Private Helipad, Orders Restoration Of Possession End Of IP Court Shopping?': Delhi High Court Refers Conflict On Territorial Jurisdiction To Larger Bench MACT Cannot Adjudicate Personal Accident; Deceased Tortfeasor's Heirs Cannot Claim From Own Insurer For His Wrong: Gujarat High Court Do Not Shut Doors To Litigants: J&K&L High Court Sets Aside Rejection Of Plaint, Rules Summary Suit Can Be Converted To Regular Recovery Suit Cannot Expect A Spouse To Endure This Forever: Karnataka High Court Upholds Divorce, Defines Limits Of 'Ordinary Wear And Tear' In Marriage Custodial Interrogation Unnecessary': Kerala High Court Grants Pre-Arrest Bail In ₹9 Crore Cheating Case As Accused Complied With Sharjah Decree Cannot Arbitrarily Value Damages: Punjab & Haryana High Court Rules Plaintiff Must Pay Ad Valorem Court Fee On Specific Claims Remarriage Of Widow Does Not Disinherit Daughter: Madras High Court 'Fatal Flaw' In Specific Performance Suits: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Plea For Failing To Plead 'Readiness And Willingness' Section 125 CrPC  | Wife's Convenience Must Be Looked At In Matrimonial Disputes: Orissa High Court Rejects Husband's Plea To Transfer Maintenance Case Executing Court Cannot Go Behind Decree: Punjab & Haryana High Court Rejects State's Plea Against Demolition Of Unauthorized Bus Stand Wall

Supreme Court Affirms the Right of Multiple Consumers to File Joint Complaints under Consumer Protection Act

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


On May 15, 2023, In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court upheld the rights of multiple consumers to join together and file joint complaints under the Consumer Protection Act. The ruling, delivered by a bench comprising Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice M.M. Sundresh, clarified the provisions relating to the filing of complaints by consumers and their representatives.

Court referred to earlier decisions, including the case of Brigade Enterprises Ltd. v. Anil Kumar Virmani (2022) 4 SCC 138, which emphasized that a joint complaint can be filed by a few consumers with the same interest, even if it is not on behalf of or for the benefit of numerous consumers. The court rejected the argument that the use of the term "a consumer" in Section 2(5)(i) excludes more than one person, pointing out that Section 2(5)(vi) recognizes the rights of legal heirs or legal representatives in case of a consumer's death.

The court further held that the word "consumer" in singular form, as used in the Consumer Protection Act, should also be understood to include the plural form. It emphasized that the Act allows for joint complaints and does not prohibit consumers with a common interest from joining together to file a single complaint. The court also noted that the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act are in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law, including the Code of Civil Procedure.

Supreme Court set aside the impugned orders and allowed the appeals, directing the National Commission to hear the matters on merits expeditiously.

Date of Decision: May 15th, 2023

Alpha G184 Owners Association  vs Magnum International Trading Company Pvt. Ltd.    

 

Latest Legal News