AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Learned Counsel for the Opposite party submits that the present Complaint is not maintainable since another class Consumer Complaint No.1422 of 2017 in respect of the same project, covering the entire project including the tower B is already pending and the application under Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has already been allowed vide order dated 20.09.2017 in the said class suit. It is submitted that the present Complaint be dismissed and liberty be given to the Complainants to become a party in the said Consumer Complaint.
Learned Counsel for the Complainants submits that the prayers are differed in both the Complaints. It is submitted that the Complainants in Consumer Complaint No.1422 of 2017 have only asked for compensation of Rs.10 Lakhs while the present Complainants are asking for compensation of Rs.50 Lakhs and have also raised the issue of shifting their tower B from the original place and therefore, it cannot be said that identical reliefs have been claimed by the Complainants. It is submitted that the nature of deficiency in service is not the same.
It is submitted on behalf of Opposite Party that there is no prayer that since the tower B has been shifted from the original place, so the Complainants do not want possession of the flat in the changed place and want refund of their deposited money. It is submitted that the prayer is for possession and for compensation. It is further submitted that the Complainants herein have intentionally claimed Rs.50 Lakhs as compensation but the fact remains that the compensation for delay has been claimed in both the Complaints by the Complainants.
I have perused the file. Admittedly, one prior Consumer Complaint No.1422 of 2017 has been filed in respect of the entire project called "Centrum Park" and an application under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act has been allowed and the publication has been done. This Commission in the case of "Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Private Limited decided on 07.10.2016" has clearly held as under:
"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."
I am satisfied that the main prayers in both the cases are identical, i.e. possession has been sought and delay compensation has also been sought. As regards the contention that the position of tower has been changed, this issue can be raised by the Complainants when they become a party in the already pending Consumer Complaint No.1422 of 2017. This contention does not change the colour of the present Complaint because the Complainants have still asked for possession of the subject flat at the changed position of the tower and do not seem to be aggrieved by the said change. The Complaint is hereby dismissed with liberty to the Complainants to approach the Commission in Consumer Complaint No.1422 of 2017 if they so desire.