NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 2154 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 22/09/2017 in Complaint No. 57/2016 of the State Commission Bihar) 1. RAKESH BIHARI & 6 ORS. S/O. LATE DEVI PRASAD, R/O. MOHALLA MARIPUR NEAR REILWAY CROSSING AT PO MUZAFFARPUR 842001 BIHAR 2. RISHIKESH BIHARI S/O. LATE DEVI PRASAD, R/O. MOHALLA MARIPUR NEAR REILWAY CROSSING AT PO MUZAFFARPUR 842001 BIHAR 3. SUNIL PRASAD S/O. LATE DEVI PRASAD, R/O. MOHALLA MARIPUR NEAR REILWAY CROSSING AT PO MUZAFFARPUR 842001 BIHAR 4. SMT SUNITA KUMARI D/O. LATE DEVI PRASAD, R/O. MOHALLA MARIPUR NEAR REILWAY CROSSING AT PO MUZAFFARPUR 842001 BIHAR 5. SMT NEELAM PRASAD W/O R/O. FLAT NO 306, 3 FLOOR VISHAL MEGAMART FRAZER ROAD PATNA BIHAR 800 001 6. KUMAR RAHUL S/O. NAWANIT PRASAD, R/O. FLAT NO 306, 3 FLOOR VISHAL MEGAMART FRAZER ROAD PATNA BIHAR 800 001 7. KUMAR ROHIT S/O. NAWANIT PRASAD R/O. FLAT NO 306, 3 FLOOR VISHAL MEGAMART FRAZER ROAD PATNA BIHAR 800 001 ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. AMIT PRAKASH & 2 ORS. CHAIRMAN, R/O. MUZAFFARPUR DIVISION , LIC EMPLOYESS COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD JEEN PRAKASH UMA SHANKAR PRASAD MARG P.O RAMNA MUZAFFARPUR BIHAR 842002 2. SH RAKESH KUMAR SECRETARY, R/O. MUZAFFARPUR DIVISION , LIC EMPLOYESS COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD JEEN PRAKASH UMA SHANKAR PRASAD MARG P.O RAMNA MUZAFFARPUR BIHAR 842002 3. SH ABHAY KUMAR TREASURE, R/O. MUZAFFARPUR DIVISION , LIC EMPLOYESS COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD JEEN PRAKASH UMA SHANKAR PRASAD MARG P.O RAMNA MUZAFFARPUR BIHAR 842002 ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MRS. REKHA GUPTA,PRESIDING MEMBER For the Appellant : MR. ASHISH VARMA NEMO For the Respondent : Dated : 03 Jan 2018 ORDER The present First Appeal has been filed by the Appellants/ Complainants against the impugned order dated 22.09.2017, passed by Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Patna (for short, ?State Commission?) in C.C. No.57 of 2016. 2. Brief facts of the case as per Appellants/Complainants are that they are bonafide ?Consumers? in Kuber Yojna Certificates? under Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Respondents/Opposite Parties issued 40 certificates to the Appellants mentioning the maturity value of all certificates and thereafter, when they approached the Respondents for payment but they were paid less than the amount due and that too after considerable delay. Hence, due to the unfair trade practice committed by the Respondents, the Appellants filed a Consumer Complaint before the State Commission with prayers that the Respondents may be directed to pay the amount of Rs.24,30,444/- along with interest @ 12%, compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to each of the Complainants and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- to each Complainant altogether Rs.31,40,444/-. 3. The Complainants have also filed a Petition with a prayer for permission under section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 stating therein that they had common interest in this case, as they belong to one family. As per the letter of District Cooperative officer Muzaffarpur, the claim of the Complainants are legal. The OPs have filed false and baseless Criminal Case against the Complainants. Hence, permission under Section 12(1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 be granted. 4. The Respondents/Opposite Parties have stated in the written statement that all the Complainants are not the employees of L.I.C., hence, they a not genuine members of the L.I.C. Employees Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. and they are not ?Consumers? of the Respondents as defined under Section 2(1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. As per Bye-laws of the Society Constituted in the year 1964, under para-4, page-2, the area of operation of the society is confined to the Tirhoot Division i.e. Muzaffarpur, Darbhanga, Saran, Champaran, Purnea and Sharsa. Complainants at Sl No.1 to 4 are residing at Patna. They are not the Members of this Society. They cannot be Complainants in this case. Total claimed amount has been mentioned to Rs. 24,30,440/- but if the claimed amount of Complainants No.5 to 7 Rs.9,66,491/- is deducted from the total claimed amount then the actual claimed amount comes to Rs.(20,30,44/-- 9,566,491/- =) Rs.14,63,953/-, which is below Rs.20,00,000/- and the State Commission has no jurisdiction under Section 11(1) of the Act. Under Para 16 of the Bye-laws, no private person can be made a member in the Society without the prior permission of the Registrar of the Co-Operative Department Government of Bihar, Patna. But private persons have also been illegally made members without prior permission of the Registrar. Criminal Cases are pending against the Complainants before the SDJM, East Muzaffarpur. Complainants have filed the complaint without taking permission of the State Commission. The Respondents prayed for dismissal of the Complaint. 5. The State Commission, vide their impugned order dated 22.09.2017, while dismissing the Complaint, observed; ?5. We have considered the complaint-Petition with annexure. Petition for granting permission under Section 12(1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the written statement and arguments filed by the Opposite-parties. Heard the matter in admission matter. As per Bye-Laws produced by the parties, it appears that the complainants should be permanent employees of Life Insurance Corporation of India serving in the jurisdiction of Muzaffarpur Division Viz. Saran, Champaran, Muzaffarpur, Darbhanga, Purnea and Saharsa District only para-4 and 6A of the Bye-Laws. But the Complainants Neelam Prasad, Kumar Rahul and Kumar Rohit all sons of Sri Nawnit Prasad are residents of Fraser Road, Patna and they are not the legal members of this Society. Hence, they are not the Consumers of the O.P.-Society. This claim is for Rs.2,48,000/- + Rs.3,59,000/- + Rs3,59,000/- altogether Rs.9,66,000/-(Rupees nine lacs and sixty six thousand only) after deducting this amount Rs. 9,66,000/- in the claim amount, Rs.24,30,000/- the claimed amount comes to Rs.14,64,000/-(Rupees Fourteen lacs and sixty four thousand only). Thus, under 11(1) this complaint does not comes within the pecuniary Jurisdiction of this Commission i.e. above Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lacs only). These three complainants are not ?Consumers? as defined under section 2(1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Under section 12(1) (c) permission has not been taken by this Commission. 6. For the reasons stated in forgoing paragraphs, this complaint is not at all maintainable in this Commission as such dismissed at admission stage itself.? 6. I have heard the leaned counsel for the Appellants. The learned counsel for the Appellants contended that the State Commission had wrongly dismissed the Complaint inspite of the order of the Larger Bench of this Commission in the matter of Ambrish Kumar Shukla and Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., which vide their order dated 07.10.2016, observed as under; ? 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 say10 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. Sub rule (2) of Rule 8 of Order I of the Code of Civil Procedure mandates the Court to give notice of the institution of the suit /complaint to all the persons ?so interested?, meaning thereby to the persons having the same interest, i.e. a common grievance, on whose behalf or for whose benefit the complaint is instituted. Notice can be either by way of personal service or where personal service is not reasonably practicable, by way of a public advertisement.? 7. The learned counsel for the Appellants contended, that since all the Appellants/Complainants are related to each other by blood and have a common interest in the said application filed under Section 12(1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 the same should have been allowed by the State Commission. 8. The purpose of filing a ?class action suit? as per the order of the Larger Bench passed in Ambrish Kumar Shukla(supra) has not been understood by the Appellants in the right perspective. The primary object in filing a ?class action suit, such as ?complaint? under Section 12(1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act is to only facilitate the decision of the consumer dispute in which a large number of consumers are interested, without recourse to each of them filing an individual complaint. In the instant case, it is not the case of the Appellants that large number of people apart from their family of 7, had any common interest with them in the subject Complaint. The prayer sought in the Complaint by the Appellants before the State Commission are as under; That O.P. be directed to pay Rs.24,30,444/- along with the interest at the rate of 12% compounding including penal per annum till the date of payment of less maturity amount to all the complainants. That O.P.s be directed to pay compensation of Rs.1 lakh to each of the complainants. That O.P. be directed to pay litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- for each of the complainants. That the O.P. be directed to pay total amount to the complainants, which are as follows:- Amount which should have to pay Rs.24,30,444/- Compensation to each complainants Rs.7,00,000/- Litigation cost Rs.10,000/- -------------------------------------- Rs.31,40,444.00 ------------------------------------- 9. It is clear from the above that the Complaint filed by the Appellants before the State Commission was not a ?Class Action Suit?. 10. Further, as per Bye-Laws No.6 (a) of the ?Muzaffarpur Division Life Insurance Corporation Employees Co-Operative Credit Society, Limited?, which reads as under; ?6 (a) The membership of the Society shall be open to all permanent employees of Life Insurance Corporation of India, above the age of 18 years, serving in the jurisdiction of Life Insurance Corporation of India, Muzaffarpur Division, who have subscribed to the applications for registration or who may hereafter be elected according to the rules.? 11. The Appellants have nowhere pleaded in their Complaint that they were the permanent employees of the Life Insurance Corporation of India serving in the jurisdiction of the Life Insurance Corporation of India, Muzaffarpur Division. The State Commission has also rightly observed that three out of the seven members in fact lived in Patna. In reply to the legal Notice sent by the Appellants, the Respondents had stated that one of the employees namely, Sunil Prasad had wrongly issued the said certificate in the name of his relatives, who were not the employees of the L.I.C. Corporation and it was the violation of the provisions of Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. Act, 1964. The Appellants have also admitted in their appeal that in their opening form they had clearly mentioned that the Appellants were not the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation of India. The said Sunil Prasad, Appellant No.3, worked as a Clerk-cum-typist got issued the shares in the name of other Appellants who are his brothers and sisters and ?Bhabis? and including himself and thus he committed a fraud and misappropriated the funds of the Society, for which a criminal case against the Appellants had been instituted, which were pending in the Court of SDJM, East Muzaffarupur. 12. In view of the above, the State Commission were justified in not granting permission to file a ?Class Action Suit? and also observing that three of the Appellants were not legally members of the Society. Further, the allegation of the deficiency of service against the Respondents for having not made payment according to the rules and regulations of the Act as well as terms and conditions of the certificate, had not been proved. 13. In view of the forgoing discussion, I do not find any cogent ground to interfere with the impugned order of the State Commission. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. 14. No order as to cost. ...................... REKHA GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER