1.       The Revision Petition No.2552 of 2018 has been filed against the order dated 05-07-2018 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal No.A/17/910 arising out of the judgment and order dated 12-07-2017 passed by South Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (in short, ‘the District Forum’) in Complaint No.25 of 2017 whereas  Revision Petition No.2553 of 2018 has been filed against the order dated 05-07-2018 passed by the State Commission in First Appeal No.A/17/912 arising out of the judgment and order dated 12-07-2017 passed by the District Forum in Complaint No.26 of 2017.

2.       We have heard Mr. Mahesh Sahasarbuddhe, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and both the Respondents appearing in person and have perused the impugned orders passed by the State Commission.

3.       The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Complainant/Respondent in each of the two cases have filed individual Complaints and the plea raised before the District Forum was that the Complaints are barred by limitation. The District Forum vide order dated 12-07-2017 had dismissed the Complaints on the ground of limitation whereupon the Complainants/Respondents preferred two separate Appeals before the State Commission. The State Commission has held the Complaints to be within limitation and remanded the matters back to the District Forum for deciding the Complaints in accordance with law. Further, while remanding the matters, the State Commission directed the Complainants to issue a public notice in the leading newspapers such as Indian Express and Free Press Journal in English and Navbharat Times and Nav Shakti in Hindi, etc., at the choice of the Complainants, which can invite the public in general so that the Complainants’ grievance can be supported and considered as class action. According to the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the Complainants have not filed any Application under Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for treating the Complaints filed by them as class action Complaints. On the other hand, it was their individual Complaints and, therefore, no justification for the State Commission to direct for issuance of public notice in the newspapers referred to above.

4.       The Complainants/Respondents who have appeared in person submitted that the defects pointed out in the Complaints were general in nature and, therefore, the State Commission was justified in directing the issuance of public notice and inviting the persons having same grievance to appear before the District Forum.

5.       We have given our thoughtful consideration to the pleas raised by the parties. In our considered opinion when the Complaints were filed by the Complainants/Respondents as individual Complaints and not as a class action Complaint under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act, there was no occasion nor any jurisdiction of the State Commission to treat the same as a Complaint under Section12(1)(c), more so, in an Appeal preferred by the Complainants/Respondents.

5.       We, therefore, set aside the directions issued by the State Commission for publication of notice in the leading newspapers referred to above. Rest of the order remains intact.

6.       We request the District Forum to decide the Complaint expeditiously in accordance with law preferably within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is filed with the State Commission.

7.       The Revision Petitions stand disposed of with the above directions.

8.       Order dasti.