(iii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986; Section 2(1)(b)(i), 12(1)(c) – Civil Procedure Code, 1908; Order 1 Rule 8 – Section 2(1)(b)(i) of the 1986 Act should be interpreted to refer to “consumers.” – Section 2(1)(b)(i) is distinct from Section 2(1)(b)(iv), which applies when multiple consumers share the same interest – Section 12(1)(c) of the 1986 Act should be read with Section 13(6) regarding complaint procedures – Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, applies when a complaint falls under Section 12(1)(c) of the 1986 Act – Order I Rule 8 CPC doesn’t apply when similar complainants jointly seek the same relief without representing others or when there’s no larger public interest involved. Held, In other words, it does not have any application when similarly placed complainants jointly make a complaint seeking the very same relief. In such a case, there is no question of Order I Rule 8 CPC being complied with as they do not represent the others, particularly when there is no larger public interest involved. Such complainants seek reliefs for themselves and nothing beyond. [Para 17]
(iv) Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Have got a laudable objective. The 2019 Act facilitates the consumers to approach the forums by providing a very flexible procedure. It is meant to encourage consumerism in the country. Any technical approach in construing the provisions against the consumer would go against the very objective behind the enactment – A pedantic and hyper-technical approach would cause damage to the very concept of consumerism. [Para 15, 23]
Cases referred to: National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Harsolia Motors, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 409, Brigade Enterprises Ltd. v. Anil Kumar Virmani (2022) 4 SCC 138, Akshay Kumar & Ors. v. Adani Brahma Synergy Pvt. Ltd in Consumer Complaint No. 48 of 2021 etc., dated 06.03.2023
Judgment displays for Subscribers only
