CAN A TRUST BE A CONSUMER BEFORE HE CONSUMER FORUM

This issue has been raised time and again in many ways and the apex court has given various judgments touching all aspects and angles in the matter before the court .

The questions raised such as-

1.      Can a consumer be a complainant against the authorities for which separate law is there to deal with such as-Railways have Railway tribunal,banks have ombudsman ,societies have registrar of societies etc. .

2.      Can more than one consumer file a case before he consumer forum collectively having similar grievance against the same person/ body

3.      And now is a question as to whether trust can file a case as consumer before the consumer forum

Coming to the first question,we have number of judgments in hand whereby apex court has suggested that consumer fora is an additional remedy available to the consumers apart from the other available laws. This issue was raised in the case of United Vaishya CO-Operative thrift &Credit  Society Ltd.V Kalavati ,RP No 823 of 2001 decided in 26^th September 2001,and  settled by Supreme court holding that by the section 93 of the co-operative and thrift societies act , civil court or other tribunals are barred but not the consumer forums ,consumers have additional remedy available to them for deficiency in services

For fix deposits matters also,it was as back as in 1993 (26.08.1993)when National Commission held in RP No. 409 of 1992 in the matter of  Neela Vasantraje v Amogh industries case that by accepting fixed deposits from the public at large ,financial institutes are rendering services and having ombusman or DRT system ,this fact does not bar consumer forum to deal with defeciency in services matters.This judgment was never challenged and number of supreme court judgments thereafter confirmed this stand  

Judgment in Indian Medical Association  v/s V/Shanta Case Apex Court in 1993 was very clear on the issue  and confirmed consumer forums as an additional remedy to consumers

 On the 2^nd point also Justice V K Jain, NCDRC on August 30^th ,2016, had ruled in favour of the 43 flat owners in Amrapali Sapphire's housing project and said that they could form an association to achieve the pecuniary limit of Rs 1 crore for approaching the NCDRC directly stating therein-

“Once it is accepted that a consumer complaint on behalf of more than one consumer can be filed by a recognized consumer association, it can hardly be disputed that it is the aggregate value of the services which has to be taken for the purpose of determining pecuniary jurisdiction of the consumer forum before which the complaint is filed,” it had said. A bench headed by justice Dipak Misra confirmed the order by NCDRC

Hence it has been clearly established that more than two consumers can jointly file consumer case,hence its no more an issue .

Coming to the case in hands Pratibha Pratisthan & Ors,the  Vs. The Manager, Canara Bank & Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 3560 of 2008] [Civil Appeal No. 3561 of 2008] .which has been dealt by Justice Madan B LokurAnd .J Prafulla C. Pant and  had   ordered dated  March 7, 2017. In this case,issue  has come before the apex court as to whether a complaint can be filed by a Trust under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 .The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission held ‘No’ to the question. For coming to this conclusion, commission referred to all relevant sections of the act for scrutiny of the subject in hands –

Section 2 (b) of the Act defines complainant in the following words:-

(b) "Complainant" means -

(I) a consumer; or

(ii) Any voluntary consumer association registered under the Companies Act, 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;

 It is quite clear from the above definition of a complainant that it does not include a Trust.

Now coming to the definition of consumer, 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;

 A reading of the definition of the words '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.

Further, we take the issue under test looking into the definition of ‘person’ also if trust could be treated as person and thereby can become complainant

Section 2(m) 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

 

Previous

Next