Read Time: 05 minutes

The Supreme Court has held that a complaint on behalf of one or two consumers having same interest can be filed only with the permission of the forum of which the jurisdiction is invoked. 

BACKGROUND

The challenge in the present appeal is to an order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short ‘NCDRC’) on 04.01.2010 whereby the appellant was imposed with the liability to pay the amount of certain cheques signed by him along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. 

CONTENTION OF PETITIONER 

The appellant has raised the following contentions: 

• The Investor Forum, Aneja Group could not have invoked the jurisdiction of the NCDRC in view of the fact that a complainant in terms of Section 2(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986  means either a consumer or any voluntary consumer association registered under the Companies Act, 1956 or under any other law for the time being in force. One or more consumers, where there are numerous consumers having the same interest, can also file a complaint but with the permission of the District Forum invoked in terms of Section 12(1)(c) of the Act. 

• The appellant further contended that M/S Aneja Consultancy is a sole proprietorship consultancy of Mr. I.J. Aneja. The same is evident from the investment receipts issued to the investors.

ORDER 

As to the first contention, the court observed that “The complainant before the NCDRC is neither a voluntary consumer association registered under the Companies Act, 1956 nor under any other law for the time being in force.” Disagreeing with the Ld Amicus Curae the Court held that 

“A complaint on behalf of one or two consumers having same interest can be filed only with the permission of the forum of which the jurisdiction is invoked. Since the complainant is neither a voluntary consumer association nor a registered body, nor the permission of the appropriate forum has been sought, therefore, the complaint itself was not maintainable.”

The court after hearing to both parties held that “since the opposite party is a sole proprietorship consultancy of Mr. I.J. Aneja, therefore, the liability of payment of investments would be that of Mr. I.J. Aneja and not of the employees who were engaged by Mr. Aneja at different places such as Nehru Place, NOIDA and Ghaziabad.” The Hon’ble Court further observed, “Since, the complaint itself was not maintainable and the appellant is an employee engaged by the sole proprietorship consultancy, there cannot be any personal liability which can be inflicted upon the appellant by virtue of only being an employee of a sole proprietorship.”

Case Title: Yogesh Aggarwal Vs. Aneja Consultancy