Anjum Hussain & Ors. v. Intellicity Business Park Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Background
44 buyers had booked office/commercial units in a mixed residential-commercial project called "Intellicity" being developed by the respondent builder, under Builder-Buyer Agreements promising possession within four years. When the builder failed to deliver possession (the project remained at the excavation stage) the 44 buyers filed a joint consumer complaint before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission seeking a refund with interest and compensation, and also sought permission under Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act to bring the complaint as a "class action" on behalf of all similarly-placed buyers of commercial units in the project, not just the 44 named complainants. The National Commission refused to allow the class action and dismissed the complaint, reasoning that since a shop/commercial unit is presumed to be for "commercial purpose" (and thus outside the Act's definition of "consumer") unless the buyer specifically shows it was for earning a livelihood through self-employment, and since it was not shown that all the project's commercial buyers (not just these 44) had booked their units for that purpose, a class action on behalf of everyone could not be maintained.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held the National Commission's reasoning was erroneous. Relying on its own earlier ruling in Chairman, Tamil Nadu Housing Board vs. T.N. Ganapathy and the National Commission's own Full Bench decision in Ambrish Kumar Shukla vs. Ferrous Infrastructure, the Court clarified that a representative/class action does not require every represented person to share the identical cause of action: what matters is "sameness of interest," meaning a common grievance against the same opposite party (here, the builder's common failure to deliver possession on time to all buyers in the same project) and a common relief sought (refund with interest). The National Commission had wrongly required proof that every single commercial-unit buyer in the project had bought their unit specifically for self-employment/livelihood purposes before it would even allow the class action to proceed: that inquiry (whether a given buyer qualifies as a "consumer" under the Act) is a merits question to be decided case-by-case for those who actually join the class, not a threshold bar to allowing the class action itself. The Court therefore allowed the appeal, held the Section 12(1)(c) application maintainable, set aside the National Commission's order, and restored the complaint to be proceeded with on merits.
Lesson Learnt
When a group of buyers in the same real-estate project share a common grievance against the same builder (like delayed possession) and seek the same relief, they can bring a joint "class action" consumer complaint without first having to prove that every other buyer in the project also qualifies individually as a "consumer": that question can be sorted out later, case by case, rather than blocking the class action from being heard at all.