This is a complaint filed u/s 12(1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act by five allottees of 1. residential flats in a project namely Mantri Celestia which the OP is developing in Hyderabad. -1- The grievance of the complainants is that despite having promised to deliver possession of the flats by 2013, the OP has not been able to complete the construction of the said flats. The complainants are therefore, before this Commission with the following prayers: (a) Directing the opposite party to pay (i) Rs. 39,40,475/- to complainant no. 1(a) and (b) jointly as the money deposited by them with opposite party alongwith the exemplary interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of payment to the opposite party till its realization to the complainant no. 1(a) and (b); (ii) Rs. 40,23,579/- to Complainant no. 2 (a) and (b) jointly as the money deposited by them with opposite party alongwith the interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of payment to the opposite party till its realization to the complainant no. 2(a) and (b); (iii) Rs. 39,92,918/- to Complainant no. 3(a) and (b) jointly as the money deposited by them with Opposite party alognwith the interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of payment to the opposite party till its realization to the complainant no. 3(a) and (b); (iv) Rs. 30,51,982/- to the Complainant no. 4, as the money deposited by them with the Opposite party alongwith the interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of payment to the opposite party till its realization to the complainant no.4 and (v) Rs. 36,70,155/- to Complainant no. 5 as the money deposited by them with opposite party alongwith the interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of payment to the opposite party till its realization to the complainant no.5. (b) Direct the opposite party to pay Rs. 7, 50,000/- to each of the complainants towards the mental harassment suffered by them due to delay in the delivery of flats by the opposite party, (c) Direct the opposite party to pay Rs. 1,50,000/- to each of the complainants for litigation expenses incurred by them against the opposite party. (d) Pass any other further order as may deem fit and necessary in the interest of justice. As regards the application under Section 12(1)(c) of Consumer Protection Act,1986, the 2. learned counsel for the complainants submitted that the grievance of all the complainants are similar in nature and all the complainants are concerned with the same cause of action; hence, there is no impediment to allow the complainants to join hands together and pursue the present complaint against the opposite parties together. The learned counsel stated that all the complainants except complainant No.3 are army 3. personnel and they will not be able to pursue the complaint individually on each and every date; therefore, the complainants decided to join hands and take legal recourse against the opposite party jointly by the help of the present complaint. In pursuance to pre-admission notice issued vide order dated 17.01.2017, the opposite party 4. filed its reply, wherein objections with respect to the maintainability of the complaint under Section 12(1) (c) were raised. The learned counsel for opposite party contended that the complaint consists of individual grievances based on different facts and situation of individuals and have filed the present complaint under Section 12(1) (c) merely to invoke the jurisdiction of this Commission. It was further contended that the prayer and reliefs sought in the complaint are individual reliefs restricted to the five complainants herein only, hence complaint under Section 12(1)(c) cannot be sustained. The learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that the opposite party successfully 5. completed the construction of the first phase of the project comprising of Block-2 consisting of residential towers D, E and F and have executed registered sale deeds and handed over possession of the flats to more than 500 customers. It was further submitted that Block-1 consisting of residential towers A, B and C where the complainants booked their flats, are also complete apart from certain internal works. In this connection, it was further submitted that the opposite party has already obtained partial occupancy certificate. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and 6. examined the record. The present complaint has been filed under Section 12(1) (c) by five complainants herein seeking reliefs against the opposite party. . Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act reads as under: 7

(12(1)(c) one or more consumers, where there are numerous consumers having the same interest, with the permission of the District Forum, on behalf of, or for the benefit of, all the consumers so interested;

It would thus be seen that the does not envisage a joint complaint by more than one complainant unless the complaint is filed under Clause (c) on behalf or for the benefit of all the consumers having the same interest in the subject matter of the complaint, provided there are numerous such consumers. The complainants have stated in their application under Section 12(1)(c) as follows:- 8.

10. That since all the complainants except complainant no. 3 are the army personnel and all of them cannot prosecute the complaint individually on each and every date and that is why they have chosen to join the hand to take the legal recourse against the opposite party jointly by the help of present complaint

. From the perusal of the application, it appears that the present complaint has not been filed 9. on behalf of or for the benefit of numerous consumers having same interest in the subject matter of the complaint, which is normally termed as a class action. Additionally, from the perusal of the prayer clause in the complaint, it appears that the complaint is limited to the refund of amount paid by the five complainants herein and not for other similarly placed allottees. In the decision of the Larger Bench of this Commission in the matter 10. Consumer Case No.97 of 2016, Ambrish Kumar Shukla &Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. decided this Commission has observed as follows:- on 07.10.2016, 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. It has already been seen in the foregoing paragraphs that the reliefs in the complaint are 10. limited to the present 5 complainants and the complaint has not been filed on behalf of or for the benefit of all the allottees seeking similar relief i.e. relief of refund. Thus, as observed by this Commission in ( ), Ambrish Kumar Shukla &Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. supra the complaint is not maintainable under Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, if filed by limited number of consumers limiting their prayer to relief for themselves only. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the complaint is not maintainable under Section 12(1)(c) 11. of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and accordingly, the permission cannot be granted under Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Accordingly, the present complaint is hereby dismissed with liberty to the complainants either to file fresh individual complaints or to file a complaint, in terms of Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act on behalf of or for the benefit of all the consumers who have common interest. ...................... PREM NARAIN PRESIDING MEMBER