Oneness Of The Interest Is Akin To A Common Grievance Against The Same Person: Read Judgment in Brief Amaresh Patel LANDMARK JUDGMENT Tue, May 28, 2019, at ,11:11 PM Title of the Case – Oneness Of The Interest Is Akin To A Common Grievance Against The Same Person: Read Judgment in Brief Name of the case – Anjum Hussain & Ors v. Intellicity Business Park Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. C.A. No. 1676 of 2019 Date of Judgment – 10 May, 2019 Judges: Justice Arun Mishra and Justice Uday Umesh Lalit Subject and sections involved – Section 12 (1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Issue: Whether complaint filed in accordance with section 12 (1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986? Fact of the Case: Anjum Hussain (appellant 1) has booked an office space admeasuring about 440 sq.ft in a project consisting of residential units, shops and officers launched by Intellicity Business Park Pvt. Ltd. 2 Dec, 2013, the Builder and Buyer Agreement was entered. The contract was to be executed within 4 years, which means, the possession was to be delivered within 4 years from entering into the contract. Intellicity Business Park Pvt. Ltd. was unable to honour the contract. The case was filed seeking refund of the amounts paid by them to the respondent along with interest and compensation. An Application under Section 12 (1) (c) of the Act was also filed by the appellants. Ratio of the case - 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, 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.” The Supreme Court has thus laid down that the National Commission in the instant case, completely lost sight of the principles so clearly laid down in the decisions referred to above. In our view, the approach in the instant case was totally erroneous.