RICHA VAID & ANR. vs M/S. GTM BUILDERS LTD. & ORS.

The complainants are husband and wife. The complainant No.1 Richa Vaid booked three residential flats whereas complainant No.2 Rajinder Kumar Vaid booked two residential flats with the opposite party Nos. 1 & 3 in a project, namely, GTM Forest & Hills, which the opposite parties want to develop in Dehradun. The agreed sale consideration in all the five bookings was more than Rs.30 lakhs but less than Rs.34 lakhs. The possession of the flats according to the complainants, was to be delivered within 18 months from the date on which the Buyer''s Agreements were executed between them and the builders. That having not been done, the complainants are before this Commission seeking refund of the entire booking amount paid by them as well as refund of the amount which they have paid to OP Nos.1 & 3 through OP No.2 UTI Bank from which housing loans were taken by the complainants.

I have heard the learned counsel for the complainants on the maintainability of the complaints. Admittedly, five separate bookings were made by the complainants, three by complainant No.1 and two by complainant No.2 for five different flats. Admittedly, the parties entered into five separate Buyer''s Agreements, three out of which were executed between complainant No.1 on one hand and OP Nos. 1 &3 on the other hand, whereas the remaining two bookings were executed between complainant No.2 on one hand and OP Nos.1 & 3 on the other hand. Therefore, five separate causes of action accrued to the complainants on account of the failure of OP Nos.1 & 3 to deliver possession of the flats booked by them. The Consumer Protection Act does not envisage or permit clubbing of the causes of action in individual complaints. This is more so when the clubbing of the causes of action would result in the change of the consumer forum having the requisite pecuniary jurisdiction. If the complainants file five separate complaints, one in respect of each booking, the complaint will have to be filed before the concerned State Commission. The complainants cannot be allowed to bypass the State Commission by clubbing five distinct causes of action available to them in respect of five separate bookings and five distinct Buyer''s Agreements. It is only in a complaint filed under section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act and possibly under section 12(1)(b) of the said Act that more than one causes of action can be clubbed together in one complaint. However, an individual is not permitted to club the causes of action available to him and approach this Commission by aggregating the pecuniary value of the services hired or availed by him in respect of such five distinct causes of action.

For the reasons stated hereinabove, I hold that a composite complaint in respect of five separate bookings made by the complainants, out of which three were made by complainant No.1 and two by complainant No.2 is not maintainable. The complaint is accordingly dismissed. It is made clear that the dismissal of the complaint will not come in the way of the complainants filing separate individual complaints in respect of each of the five bookings which are the subject matter of this complaint.