Supreme Court:  TRUST IS NOT CONSUMER

Hon'ble Justice: Madan B. Lokur and Prafulla C. Pant,

 PRATIBHA PRATISTHAN and others            Appellants.

Vs.

MANAGER, CANARA BANK and others      Respondents.

Issues: whether a complaint can be filed by a Trust under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986  

• Supreme Court has held that A Trust is not a person and therefore not a consumer and Trust cannot be a complainant and cannot file a consumer dispute under provisions of Act. A reading of the definition of the words “complainant”, “complaint” 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.
• The word “person” has also been defined in section 2(1)(m). In terms thereof a trust is not a person and therefore not a consumer. Consequently, it cannot be a complainant and cannot file a consumer dispute. In view of the above, the National Commission was quite right in holding that the complaint filed by the appellant Trust was not maintainable.
• A complainant is defined in section 2(1)(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.

• 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 :— (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;
• In view of the above, Supreme Court held that the National Commission was quite right in holding that the complaint filed by the appellant Trust was not maintainable. Supreme Court 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 and refrain from making any comment on the merits of the dispute. The complaint filed by it under consumer protection act not maintainable and hence the appeals are dismissed.