- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Pratibha Pratisthan And Others v. Manager, Canara Bank And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant, a trust, filed Complaint O.P. No. 156 of 1997 before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“National Commission”) seeking relief under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (“the Act”). The National Commission dismissed the complaint on the ground that a trust is not entitled to file a complaint under the Act. The trust appealed the dismissal. The present judgment decides that appeal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether a trust qualifies as a “complainant” or “consumer” under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and can therefore file a complaint before consumer fora.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court conducted a textual analysis of the Act’s definitional provisions:
- Section 2(1)(b) – “Complainant”: Enumerates specific entities and categories (consumer, registered voluntary consumer association, Government, multiple consumers, and legal heirs) that may lodge complaints. A trust is not included.
- Section 2(1)(d) – “Consumer”: Defines who may purchase goods or hire services for consideration. The term does not expressly bring a trust within its ambit.
- Section 2(1)(m) – “Person”: Includes a firm, Hindu undivided family, cooperative society, and “every other association of persons” but does not list trusts.
From these provisions, the Court concluded that:
- A trust is not a “person” under the Act.
- Because it is not a “person,” a trust cannot be a “consumer.”
- Consequently, a trust cannot satisfy the definition of “complainant.”
Given these statutory exclusions, the Court upheld the National Commission’s finding that the trust’s complaint was not maintainable. The Court declined to address the substantive merits of the dispute, having found jurisdiction lacking.
Holding and Implications
Appeals Dismissed.
Direct Consequence: The complaint filed by the appellant trust remains dismissed for want of maintainability.
Broader Implications: The decision reaffirms that trusts cannot seek redress under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 unless the statute is amended to include them; no new precedent was set beyond this clarification.
Madan B. Lokur, J.— In these appeals a very short question has arisen, namely, whether a complaint can be filed by a trust under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”). The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short “the National Commission”) answered OP No. 156 of 1997 the question in the negative and we are in agreement with that view.
2. Section 2(1)(c) of the Act provides for a complainant making a complaint, inter alia, for an unfair trade practice or a restrictive trade practice adopted by any trader or service provider; a complaint in respect of goods (bought by a complainant) suffering from one or more defects; a complaint of deficiency in services hired or availed of by a complainant and so on. A “complainant” is defined in Section 2(1)(b) of the Act in the following words:
“2.(1)(b) “complainant” means—
(i) a consumer; or
(ii) any voluntary consumer association registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) or under any other law for the time being in force; or
(iii) the Central Government or any State Government; who or which makes a complaint; or
(iv) one or more consumers, where there are numerous consumers having the same interest;
(v) in case of death of a consumer, his legal heir or representative;”
3. It is quite clear from the above definition of a complainant that it does not include a trust. But does a trust come within the definition of a consumer? A “consumer” has been defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Act as follows:
“2.(1)(d) “consumer” means any person who—
(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or
(ii) hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person; but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose;
Explanation.—For the purposes of this clause, “commercial purpose” does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment;”
4. A reading of the definition of the words “complaint”, “complainant” and “consumer” makes it clear that a trust cannot invoke the provisions of the Act in respect of any allegation on the basis of which a complaint could be made. To put this beyond any doubt, the word “person” has also been defined in the Act and Section 2(1)(m) thereof defines a “person” as follows:
“2.(1)(m) “person” includes—
(i) a firm whether registered or not;
(ii) a Hindu undivided family;
(iii) a cooperative society;
(iv) every other association of persons whether registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (21 of 1860) or not;”
5. On a plain and simple reading of all the above provisions of the Act it is clear that a trust is not a person and therefore not a consumer. Consequently, it cannot be a complainant and cannot file a consumer dispute under the provisions of the Act.
6. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the National Commission was quite right in holding that the complaint filed by the appellant Trust was not maintainable.
7. We have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties on the merits of the dispute. However, since we have concluded that the complaint itself was not maintainable, we refrain from making any comment on the merits of the dispute.
8. The appeals are dismissed.
Alert