MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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