caselaws
Supreme Court of India
Pratibha Pratisthan & Ors vs Manager, Canara Bank & Ors on 7 March, 2017Author: M B Lokur
Bench: Madan B. Lokur, Prafulla C. Pant
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3560 OF 2008
Pratibha Pratisthan & Ors. ….Appellants
vs.
Manager, Canara Bank & Ors.
…Respondents
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3561 OF 2008
J U D G M E N T
Madan B. Lokur, J.
1. 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, ‘National Commission’) answered
the question in the negative and we are in agreement with that view.
2. Section 2 (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 (b) of the Act in the
following words :-
(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; 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 ;
who or which makes a complaint;
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 (d) of the Act as follows :-
(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 of 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(m) thereof defines a person as
follows :-
(m) “person” includes, –
(i) a firm whether registered or not;
(ii) a Hindu undivided family;
(iii) a co-operative 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 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 submissions of 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.
..……………………….J
(Madan B. Lokur)
New Delhi;
.………………………J
March 7, 2017
(Prafulla C. Pant)
Comments