LLM Notes: Explain the scope of consumer Rights Against Public Utilities Under the Consumer Protection Act

 The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 provides a comprehensive framework for protecting consumers against deficiencies and unfair practices by public utility services. This legislation significantly expanded consumer rights and established robust enforcement mechanisms specifically applicable to essential services including electricity, water, telecommunications, and gas supply.

Scope and Coverage of Public Utility Services

Under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, public utility services are broadly defined as essential services that are indispensable for daily life and are primarily provided by government or government-controlled entities. These services include electricity supply, water distribution, telecommunications, postal services, gas supply, public transport, and health services.

Print Page

Revolutionary Accountability: The Jyoti Khemka Judgment Redefines Investment Intermediary Liability

 

A Paradigmatic Shift in Indian Financial Market Jurisprudence

The landmark decision of the Chandigarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Jyoti Khemka vs Catalyst Trusteeship Limited and Ors (Appeal No. 58 of 2023) represents a seismic shift in Indian financial market jurisprudence. This groundbreaking judgment, delivered on July 31, 2025, by President Raj Shekhar Attri and Member Rajesh K. Arya, marks the first instance where a consumer forum has held market intermediaries—specifically debenture trustees and credit rating agencies—liable for investor losses arising from corporate defaults.

The Factual Matrix: A Tale of Systemic Failures

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

LLM Notes: Discuss the aims and objects of consumer protection Act 1986 and also write rights of consumers as per indian law.

 Aims and Objects of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was a landmark legislation enacted by the Parliament of India to address consumer grievances and provide comprehensive protection to consumers in the marketplace. The Act has since been replaced by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, but its foundational principles remain crucial.

Primary Aims and Objects:

1. Protection Against Exploitation

Print Page

LLM Notes: Public Utilities Law Summary

 Here is a structured summary and key points  that address the broad topics related to Public Utilities Law:

1. Definition, Privileges, and Obligations of Public Utility Services

·       Definition: Public utility services are essential services linked to daily life, provided primarily by the government or government-controlled bodies (e.g., electricity, water supply, public transport, postal services, telecommunications, health services, gas supply).

·       Privileges: Include legal protection (e.g., Essential Services Maintenance Act), priority status in resources, subsidies, and government ownership/control.

·       Obligations: Universal access to services, continuity and regularity, reasonable pricing, quality service, and grievance redressal mechanisms.

Print Page

LLM Notes: Legislative Intent of Consumer Protection Act in India: Protection Against Services by Statutory Bodies{Part 2}

 The Consumer Protection Act in India represents a paradigm shift in the country's approach to consumer rights, establishing that the legislative intent extends comprehensively to protect consumers against services rendered by all entities, including statutory bodies. This benevolent social legislation demonstrates Parliament's commitment to ensuring that consumers receive adequate protection regardless of whether services are provided by private entities or government-established statutory authorities.

Historical Evolution and Legislative Framework

Development of Consumer Protection Legislation

Print Page

LLM Notes: Legislative Intent of Consumer Protection Act: Protection Against Services by Statutory Bodies in India{Part 1}

 The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 embodies a comprehensive legislative intent to safeguard consumer interests against all service providers, including statutory bodies and government organizations . This Act replaced the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with enhanced provisions to address modern consumer challenges while maintaining the fundamental principle of protecting consumers from deficient services regardless of the provider's nature .

- Comprehensive Definition of Service Provider

Print Page

LLM Notes: Rights of Consumers under the Consumer Protection Act

 The Consumer Protection Act in India, most recently updated in 2019, grants consumers several explicit rights to protect them from unfair trade practices and ensure their interests are safeguarded in the marketplace. These rights are foundational to consumer empowerment and are defined under Section 2(9) of the Act.

Key Rights of Consumers

• Right to Safety

  Consumers have the right to be protected against goods and services that are hazardous to life and property. This ensures that products and services meet safety standards and do not pose risks to consumers’ health or well-being.

Print Page

Under which circumstance Insurance Company can not reject Mediclaim?

 Returning to the facts of the present case, the strict and actual interpretation of Clause 4 reflects that the Insurance Company is permitted to exclude the expenses borne in case the insured person is suffering from any kind of Pre-existing disease(s) until the insured person is continuously covered under the policy for a minimum period of 48 months. What constitutes Pre-existing disease has been provided in the Insurance Policy itself, which reads as follows:-

“Pre-existing condition/disease definition- any condition, ailment, or injury or related condition for which insured person had signs and symptoms and / or were received medical advice/treatment 48 months prior to his/her Super Top Up Medicare policy with the company”

15. The aforesaid definition clause makes it abundantly clear that in order for a disease to be categorized as pre-existing disease, the Insured must have received medical advice/treatment 48 months prior to purchasing the policy for that particular disease. Whereas, the facts are crystal clear that the prior disease on which the Insurance Company has relied to repudiate the claim of the Insured, was last treated in the year 2004 i.e. 5 years before the Policy No. 2 was purchased. Hence, it cannot be said that the case of the Insured fulfils the essentials of the Pre-Existing disease provided in the Insurance policy.

IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

FIRST APPEAL NO. 161/2016

IN THE MATTER OF

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Vs

MANMOHAN SINGH 

CORAM:

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)

HON’BLE SH. ANIL SRIVASTAVA, (MEMBER)

PER: HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL,

PRESIDENT

JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 02.08.2021

Print Page

Whether court can direct plaintiff to amend his pleading permitting defendant to file additional written statement?

The party which moves the forum is dominus litis and is entitled to decide whether or not to amend the pleading or to pursue the complaint, as it stands. 

11 To recapitulate, in the situation as it stands at present, the appellant could take recourse to either of three courses of action, namely:

(i) pursue the complaint as it stands; or

(ii) amend the complaint to challenge the letter of repudiation; or

(iii) withdraw the existing complaint with liberty to institute a fresh complaint to challenge the letter of repudiation.

12 The error in the order of the NCDRC was to compel the appellant to amend the complaint, as a consequence of which, it granted permission to the first respondent to file a written statement to the amended complaint. The effect of this would be to deprive the appellant of the benefit of urging that written statement cannot be filed at this stage in view of the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Private Limited (supra). The deprivation of the right to set up such a plea is a matter of prejudice to the appellant which is a result of the impugned order of the NCDRC. We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on whether the respondent can file a written statement since this does not form the subject matter of the present appeal. We hold that the appellant could not have been directed to amend the complaint to challenge the repudiation of the contract of insurance.

The appellant has stated that it does not wish to do so. This is a decision which has to be taken by the appellant and it cannot be compelled to amend the complaint.

 Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal Nos 4476-4477 of 2021

M/s Acme Cleantech Solutions Private Limited  Vs M/s United India Insurance Company Limited 

Author: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J

Dated: December 09, 2021

Print Page

Supreme Court: Hospital which is giving free medical treatment to some patients and charging others for providing services are liable under consumer protection Act

While evaluating the submission which has been urged by Mr R S

Suri, it is necessary, at the outset, to have regard to the principles which

have been laid down in the judgment of this Court in Indian Medical

Association. In the judgment of this Court, the provisions of Section 2(1)

(o) of the Act fell for interpretation. Section 2(1)(o) provides as follows:

“"service" means service of any description which is

made available to the potential users and includes

the provision of facilities in connection with banking,

financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply

of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or

both, [housing construction], entertainment,

amusement or the purveying of news or other

information, but does not include rendering of any

service free of charge or under a contract of

personal service;"

10 Interpreting the above provision, a three judge Bench of this Court

held that it is only where a hospital provides medical services free of

charge across the board to all patients that it would stand outside the

purview of the Act. The Court held that a hospital which renders free

services to a certain category of patients, while providing for services

which are charged to the bulk of others would not lie outside the purview of

the jurisdiction of the consumer fora. This principle is evident from the

following extract from the decision of this Court:

“43...The third category of doctors and hospitals do provide

free service to some of the patients belonging to the poor

class but the bulk of the service is rendered to the patients on

payment basis. The expenses incurred for providing free

service are met out of the income from the service rendered

to the paying patients. The service rendered by such doctors

and hospitals to paying patients undoubtedly fall within the

ambit of Section 2(1) (o) of the Act.”

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal No 2823 of 2020

Union of India Vs  N K Srivasta 

Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J

Dated:July 23, 2020

Print Page

Central Government notification bringing some of the provisions of Consumer Protection Act 2019 in to force on 20 July 2020

1) https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VJYZHtjSDLwDuGXBRaIc3H3pmnUutWXt/view?usp=sharing

2) https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-1JqZ0sXML6V5LYQazFDPJNN3kmPjrlD/view?usp=sharing

Print Page

Supreme Court: Workers who are beneficiary of government schemes are a consumer as per the Consumer Protection Act

 The expression ‘service’ has been defined in the widest possible terms to mean ‘service of any description which is made available to potential users’. The exception in Section 2(1)(o) is a service which is rendered free of

charge. The workers who are registered under the provisions of the Act of 1996 are beneficiaries of the schemes made by the Board. Upon registration, every worker is required to make a contribution to the fund at such rate per month as may be prescribed by the State government. The fund into which the contributions by persons who are registered under the Act are remitted, comprises among other sources, the contributions made by the beneficiaries. The fund is applied inter alia for meeting the expenses incurred to fulfill the objects and purposes authorized by the legislation. In view of the statutory scheme, the services which are rendered by the Board to the beneficiaries are not services which are provided free of charge so as to constitute an exclusion from the statutory definition contained in Section 2(1)(o) and Section 2(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The true test is not whether the amount which has been contributed by the beneficiary is adequate to defray the entire cost of the expenditure envisaged under the scheme. So long as the service which has been rendered is not rendered free of charge, any deficiency of service is amenable to the fora for redressal constituted under the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The Act does not require an enquiry into whether the cost of providing the service is entirely defrayed from the price which is paid for availing of the service. As we have seen from the definition contained in Section 2(1)(d), a ‘consumer’ includes not only a person who has hired or availed of service but even a beneficiary of a service. The registered workers are clearly beneficiaries of the service provided by the Board in a statutory capacity.

14 As a matter of interpretation, the provisions contained in the Consumer Protection Act 1986 must be construed in a purposive manner. Parliament has provided a salutary

remedy to consumers of both goods and services. Public authorities such as the appellants who have been constituted under an enactment of Parliament are entrusted with a solemn duty of providing welfare services to registered workers. The workers who are registered with the Board make contributions on the basis of which they are entitled to avail of the services provided in terms of the schemes notified by the Board. Public accountability is a significant consideration which underlies the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The evolution of jurisprudence in relation to the enactment reflects the need to ensure a sense of public accountability by allowing consumers a redressal in the context of the discharge of non-sovereign functions which are not rendered free of charge. This test is duly met in the present case.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal No 2014 of 2020

The Joint Labour Commissioner Vs  Kesar Lal 

Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J

Dated:March 17, 2020.

Print Page

Basic principles for determining whether an activity or transaction is for a commercial purpose

To summarize from the above discussion, though a straight-jacket formula cannot be adopted in every case, the following broad principles can be culled out for determining whether an activity or transaction is 'for a commercial purpose':

(i) The question of whether a transaction is for a commercial purpose would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. However, ordinarily, 'commercial purpose' is understood to include manufacturing/industrial activity or business-to-business transactions between commercial entities.

(ii) The purchase of the good or service should have a close and direct nexus with a profit-generating activity.

(iii) The identity of the person making the purchase or the value of the transaction is not conclusive to the question of whether it is for a commercial purpose. It has to be seen whether the dominant intention or dominant purpose for the transaction was to facilitate some kind of profit generation for the purchaser and/or their beneficiary.

(iv) If it is found that the dominant purpose behind purchasing the good or service was for the personal use and consumption of the purchaser and/or their beneficiary, or is otherwise not linked to any commercial activity, the question of whether such a purchase was for the purpose of 'generating livelihood by means of self-employment' need not be looked into.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 12322 of 2016

Decided On: 14.11.2019

 Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust  Vs.  Unique Shanti Developers and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Ajay Rastogi, JJ.

Print Page

Whether Consumer Forum Has Jurisdiction To Adjudicate Dispute Concerning Validity Of Statutory Due Arising Out Of Deficiency In Service?

We may also refer to the case of Ghaziabad Development
Authority (supra) wherein this Court, relying upon Lucknow
Development Authority case (supra), held that the power of the
Consumer forum extends to redressing any injustice rendered upon
a consumer as well as over any mala fide, capricious or any
oppressive act done by a statutory body. The relevant para of the
judgment reads as under:

“6. ….Thus, the law is that the Consumer
Protection Act has a wide reach and the
Commission has jurisdiction even in cases of
service rendered by statutory and public
authorities. Such authorities become liable to
compensate for misfeasance in public office i.e. an
act which is oppressive or capricious or arbitrary
or negligent provided loss or injury is suffered by
a citizen.
…
Where there has been capricious or arbitrary
or negligent exercise or nonexercise
of power
by an officer of the authority, the
Commission/Forum has a statutory obligation
to award compensation. If the
Commission/Forum is satisfied that a
complainant is entitled to compensation for
loss or injury or for harassment or mental
agony or oppression, then after recording a
finding it must direct the authority to pay
compensation and then also direct recovery
from those found responsible for such
unpardonable behaviour.
(emphasis supplied)
22. Therefore, in line with the law laid down by us, we hold that the
determination of the dispute concerning the validity of the
imposition of a statutory due arising out of a “deficiency in service”,
can be undertaken by the consumer fora as per the provisions of
the Act. The decision of this Court in the case of Sunita (supra),
wherein it was held that NCDRC has no jurisdiction to adjudicate
the legitimacy of the aforementioned statutory dues, was rendered

without considering any of the previous judgments of this Court
and the objects of the Act. Consequently, the law laid down in the
aforesaid case does not hold good before the eyes of law, and is
thereby overruled.

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SLP (C ) NO. 4272 OF 2015

PUNJAB URBAN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (NOW GLADA) Vs VIDYA CHETAL

N.V. RAMANA, J.
Dated:SEPTEMBER 16, 2019.

Print Page

Whether court should allow some of person to sue in representative capacity?

As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Tamil Nadu Housing Board (supra), the
interest of the persons on whose behalf the
claim is brought must be common or they must
have a common grievance which they seek to
get addressed. The defect or deficiency in

the goods purchased, or the services hire
or availed of by them should be the same for
all the consumers on whose behalf or for
whose benefit the complaint is filed.
Therefore, the oneness of the interest is
akin to a common grievance against the same
person. If, for instance, a number of flats
or plots in a project are sold by a
builder/developer to a number of persons, he
fails to deliver possession of the said
flats/plots within the time frame promised
by him, and a complaint is filed by one or
more such persons, either seeking delivery
of possession of flats/plots purchased by
them and other purchasers in the said
project, or refund of the money paid by them
and the other purchasers to the
developer/builder is sought, the grievance
of such persons being common i.e. the
failure of the builder/developer to deliver
timely possession of the flats/plots sold to
them, they would have same interest in the
subject matter of the complaint and
sufficient community of interest to justify
the adoption of the procedure prescribed in
Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, provided that the complaint is
filed on behalf of or for the benefit of all
the persons having a common grievance
against the same developer/builder, and
identical relief is sought for all such
consumers.
The primary object behind permitting a class
action such as a complaint under Section
12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act
being to facilitate the decision of a
consumer dispute in which a large number of
consumers are interested, without recourse
to each of them filing an individual
complaint, it is necessary that such a
complaint is filed on behalf of or for the
benefit of all the persons having such a
community of interest. A complaint on behalf
of only some of them therefore will not be
maintainable. If for instance, 100 flat
buyers/plot buyers in a project have a
common grievance against the
Builder/Developer and a complaint under
Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection
Act is filed on behalf of or for the benefit
of say 10 of them, the primary purpose

behind permitting a class action will not be
achieved, since the remaining 90 aggrieved
persons will be compelled either to file
individual complaints or to file complaints
on behalf of or for the benefit of the
different group of purchasers in the same
project. This, in our view, could not have
been the Legislative intent. The term
'persons so interested' and 'persons having
the same interest' used in Section 12(1)(c)
mean, the persons having a common grievance
against the same service provider. The use
of the words 'all consumers so interested'
and "on behalf of or for the benefit of all
consumers so interested", in Section 12(1)
(c) leaves no doubt that such a complaint
must necessarily be filed on behalf of or
for the benefit of all the persons having a
common grievance, seeking a common relief
and consequently having a community of
interest against the same service provider.”
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1676 OF 2019

ANJUM HUSSAIN Vs   INTELLICITY BUSINESS PARK PVT. LTD.

Uday Umesh Lalit, J.
Dated:May 10, 2019.

Print Page

Whether bank can refuse to encash FDR issued without consideration?

Be that as it may, we do not see nor is there any discussion in the orders before us giving the basis on which the second FDR was issued. Assuming the FDR dated 8th March, 1996 was issued to the Appellant fraudulently, it was all the more obligatory on the Respondent-Bank to have taken action against its employees. As far as the Appellant is concerned, the only document that he had in his possession and rightly so was the FDR issued to him by the Respondent-Bank. The Appellant cannot be expected to produce anything more than what is given to him by the Bank which is the FDR receipt itself.

9. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that the State Commission as well as the National Commission were in error in dismissing the complaint filed by the Appellant. Accordingly, we set aside the orders passed by the State Commission as well as the National Commission and restore the order passed by the District Consumer Forum.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 6850 of 2005

Decided On: 18.01.2017

 Pishora Singh Vs.  Bank of Punjab and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Madan B. Lokur and Prafulla C. Pant, JJ.

Citation: AIR 2017 SC 2696

Print Page

Whether Second Complaint to Consumer forum is maintainable?

These Rules do not provide that if
a complaint is dismissed in default by the
District Forum under Rule 4(8) or by the State
Commission under Rule 8(8) of the Rules, a
second complaint would not lie. Thus, there is
no provision parallel to the provision
contained in Order 9 Rule 9(1) CPC which
contains a prohibition that if a suit is
dismissed in default of the plaintiff under
Order 9 Rule 8, a second suit on the same cause
of action would not lie. That being so, the
rule of prohibition contained in Order 9 Rule
9(1) CPC cannot be extended to the proceedings
before the District Forum or the State
Commission. The fact that the case was not
decided on merits and was dismissed in default
of non-appearance of the complainant cannot be
overlooked and, therefore, it would be
permissible to file a second complaint
explaining why the earlier complaint could not
be pursued and was dismissed in default.”
We have also not been shown any rule similar to Order
IX, Rule 9(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. That
being so, and in view of the decision rendered by this
Court, with which we have no reason to disagree, we are
of the opinion that the second complaint filed by the
appellant was maintainable on the facts of this case.
Under the circumstances, we set aside the order
passed by the National Commission and remit the matter
back to the National Commission for adjudicating the
disputes on merits.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.557 OF 2016

INDIAN MACHINERY COMPANY V M/S. ANSAL HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION LTD.
Dated:JANUARY 27, 2016

Print Page

Whether trust can file complaint under consumer protection Act?

 A reading of the definition of the words ‘complaint’, ‘complainant’
and ‘consumer’ makes it clear that a Trust cannot invoke the provisions of
the Act in respect of any allegation on the basis of which a complaint could
be made. To put this beyond any doubt, the word ‘person’ has also been
defined in the Act and Section 2(m) thereof defines a person as follows :-
(m) "person" includes, −
(i) a firm whether registered or not;
(ii) a Hindu undivided family;
(iii) a co-operative society;
(iv) every other association of persons whether registered under the
Societies Registration Act, 1860 (21 of 1860) or not

5. On a plain and simple reading of all the above provisions of the Act it
is clear that a Trust is not a person and therefore not a consumer.
Consequently, it cannot be a complainant and cannot file a consumer
dispute under the provisions of the Act.
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3560 OF 2008
Pratibha Pratisthan & Ors.
vs.
Manager, Canara Bank & Ors.
Dated:March 7, 2017.
Citation: AIR 2017 SC 1303,(2017) 3 SCC 712

Print Page

NCDRC directed bank to pay compensation of Rs fifty thousand for delay in processing of cheque

Having heard Learned counsel for the Petitioner and the Complainant, who is on caveat, we are of the view that the Revision Petition is without any substance. On appraisal of the evidence adduced by the parties, particularly the pay-in-slip, both the Fora below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the Petitioner had failed to substantiate its stand that the delay in credit of the said amount was because of the reason that the Complainant had failed to mention the Account Number and the account holder's name on the pay-in-slip, at the time of deposit of the cheque. Both the Forums have rejected the stand of the Petitioner that the said particulars were filled up later. The said finding having not been specifically challenged as being perverse, we do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order, warranting our interference in Revisional jurisdiction, more so when the total amount involved in the case is a meagre sum of 50,000/-, which includes the litigation cost.

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi

(Before D.K. Jain, President and M. Shreesha, Member)

Indian Overseas Bank

V

 R.K. Sharma 

Revision Petition No. 3414 of 2016

Decided on January 2, 2017

Citation: 2017 SCC OnLine NCDRC 2

Print Page

Whether class action suits can be filed under consumer protection Act?

A complaint under Section 12 (1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act can be filed only on behalf of or for the benefit of all the consumers,
having a common interest or a common grievance and seeking the same / identical relief against the same person. Such a complaint however, shall
not be deemed to have been filed on behalf of or for the benefit of the consumers who have already filed individual complaints before the requisite
permission in terms of Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act is accorded.
Issue No. (ii), (iii) and (iv)
A complaint under Section 12 (1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act is maintainable before this Commission where the aggregate of the value
of the goods purchased or the services hired or availed of by all the consumers on whose behalf or for whose benefit the complaint is instituted and
the total compensation, if any, claimed in respect of all such consumers exceeds Rs.1.00 crore. The value of the goods purchased or the services
hired and availed of by an individual consumer or the size, or date of booking / allotment / purchase of the flat would be wholly irrelevant in such a
complaint where the complaint relates to the sale / allotment of several flats / plots in the same project / building.
Reference dated 11.8.2016
Issue No. (i)It is the value of the goods or services, as the case may be, and not the value or cost of removing the deficiency in the service which is to be
considered for the purpose of determining the pecuniary jurisdiction.
Issue No. (ii)
The interest has to be taken into account for the purpose of determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of a Consumer Forum.
Issue No. (iii)
The consideration paid or agreed to be paid by the consumer at the time of purchasing the goods or hiring or availing of the services, as the
case may be, is to be considered, along with the compensation, if any, claimed in the complaint, to determine the pecuniary jurisdiction of a
Consumer Forum.
Issue No. (iv)
In a complaint instituted under Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, the pecuniary jurisdiction is to be determined on the basis of
aggregate of the value of the goods purchased or the services hired or availed by all the consumers on whose behalf or for whose benefit the
complaint is instituted and the total compensation claimed in respect of such consumers.
Issue No. (v) & (vi)
A complaint under Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act can be instituted only by one or more consumers, as defined in Section
2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. Therefore, a group of Cooperative societies, Firms, Association or other Society cannot file such a
complaint unless such society etc. itself is a consumer as defined in the aforesaid provision.
Issue No. (vii)
More than one complaints under Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act are not maintainable on behalf of or for the benefit of
consumers having the same interest i.e. a common grievance and seeking the same / identical against the same person. In case more than one such
complaints have been instituted, it is only the complaint instituted first under Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, with the requisite
permission of the Consumer Forum, which can continue and the remaining complaints filed under Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act
are liable to be dismissed with liberty to join in the complaint instituted first with the requisite permission of the Consumer Forum.
The individual complaints instituted before grant of the requisite permission under Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act can
continue despite grant of the said permission but it would be open to such complainants to withdraw their individual complaints and join as parties to
the complaint instituted in a representative character. However, once the requisite permission under Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act
is granted, an individual complaint, expressing the same grievance will not be maintainable and the only remedy open to a consumer having the same
grievance is to join as a party to the complaint instituted in a representative character.
16. Before parting with the references, we would like to emphasise that considering the binding effect of a decision rendered in a complaint under
Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, on all the consumers, on whose behalf or for whose benefit such a complaint is filed, even if they
chose not to join as a party to the complaint, it is necessary to exercise due care and caution while considering such a complaint even at the initialstage and to grant the requisite permission, only where the complaint fulfils all the requisite conditions in terms of Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer
Protection Act read with Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure; as interpreted in this reference. It would also be necessary for the Bench to
either give individual notices or an adequate public notice of the institution of the complaint to all the persons on whose behalf or for whose benefit
the complaint is instituted. Such a notice should disclose inter­alia (i) the subject matter of the complaint including the particulars of the project if
the complaint relates to a housing project / scheme, (ii) the class of persons on whose behalf or for whose benefit the complaint is filed, (iii) the
common grievance sought to get redressed through the class action, (iv) the alleged deficiency in the services and (v) the reliefs claimed in the
complaint.
It will also be necessary to hear the opposite party, before taking a final view on the grant or otherwise of the permission required in terms of
Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act.NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
CONSUMER CASE NO. 97 OF 2016
 AMBRISH KUMAR SHUKLA 
V
 FERROUS INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K. JAIN,PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN,MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. B.C. GUPTA,MEMBER
Dated : 07 Oct 2016

Print Page