Consumer VOICE

  Join Us Donate Now

Administrator Smt. Tara Bai Desai Charitable Opthalmic Trust Hospital, Jodhpur Vs. Managing Director Supreme Elevators India Pvt. Ltd & Ors.

In The Supreme Court Of India Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.18636 Of 2019
Bench: Justices Uday Umesh Lalit & Aniruddha Bose
Decided On: October 4th, 2019
Brief facts of the case:

In the instant case, the principal issue involved in the matter is whether a Charitable Trust could maintain an action under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and claim compensation under the Act.

Earlier, in the year 2017, the Supreme Court in the matter of Pratibha Pratishthan & vs. Manager, Canara Bank held that a Trust is not a person and therefore not a consumer. Consequently, it cannot be a complainant and cannot file consumer complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Supreme Court said that the National Commission was quite right in holding that the complaint filed by the appellant Trust was not maintainable hence, dismissed the appeal.

However, in the instant case, the bench doubted the ratio in Pratibha Pratisthan v. Manager, Canara Bank, in which it was held that a trust is not a person and therefore not a consumer and consequently, it cannot be a complainant and cannot file a consumer dispute under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. Thus, while saying it is difficult to accept that “trust” would not come within the definition of a “consumer” the Supreme Court has referred to larger bench the issue whether a ‘trust’ is a ‘consumer’ under Consumer Protection Act so as to file complaints before the Consumer Forums.

The District Forum accepted the claim of the Complainant-Trust however, the appeal arising therefrom was allowed by the State Commission and National Commission on the ground that a Trust could not be a “consumer” within the meaning of the Act. The reliance was placed on a decision of this Court delivered in Pratibha Pratisthan vs. Manager, Canara Bank, to hold that a “trust” would not be a “person” and therefore not a “consumer” within the meaning of the provisions of the Act. Consequently, it cannot be a complainant and cannot file a consumer dispute under the provisions of the Act.”
 
The definition of “person” came up for consideration in Ramanlal Bhailal Patel v. State of Gujarat, and it was observed by this Court that the ordinary, popular and natural meaning of the word “person” is “a specific individual human being”. But in law the word “person” has a slightly different connotation and refers to any entity that is recognised by law as having the rights and duties of a human being. Thus the word “person”, in law, unless otherwise intended, refers not only to a natural person (male or female human being), but also any legal person (that is an entity that is recognised by law as having or capable of having rights and duties). The General Clauses Act thus defines a “person” as including a corporation or an association of persons or a body of individuals whether incorporated or not.
 
Bench of Justices Uday Umesh Lalit & Aniruddha Bose said that the expression “person” includes “every other association of persons whether registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (21 of 1860) or not”. Moreover, the legislative intent appears to have a wider coverage and therefore the concerned provision includes number of categories under the definition of “person” so much so that even an unregistered firm which otherwise has certain disabilities in law, is also entitled to maintain an action.
 
The Supreme Court concluded by saying that it is difficult to accept that a “trust” would not come within the definition of a “consumer” and the issue requires to be revisited and the matter requires re-consideration. The bench also requested the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India to constitute a bench of such strength as the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India may consider proper.

Top ten List of Judgement

  1. Pioneer Urban Land And Infrastructure Limited & Anr. Vs. Union Of India & Amp; Ors.: Supreme Court nullified builders effort to oust homebuyers from consumer courts and insolvency proceedings. Read More
    August 9th, 2019
  1. Alok Kumar V. M/S. Golden Peacock Residency Private Limited & Anr.: Unfair to make homebuyers wait indefinitely for possession, directs developer to refund money: National Commission. Read More
    6th September, 2019
  1. Anjum Hussain vs Intellicity Business Park Pvt Ltd: In class action suits, oneness of the interest is akin to a common grievance against same person: Supreme Court.
    10th May, 2019 Read More
  1. Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. vs. Govindan Raghavan: Homebuyers can’t be forced to accept possession in case of unreasonably delayed flat: Supreme Court.
    April 2nd, 2019 Read More
  1. Sunil Kohli vs. M/s. Purearth Infrastructure Ltd.: If the purchaser of good uses the good for earning livelihood, he is ‘consumer’: Supreme Court. Read More
    October 1st, 2019
  1. Vibha Bakshi Gokhale Vs. Gruhashilp Constructions: Dismissal of consumer complaints on mere technical grounds, defeats the purpose of ensuring justice: Supreme Court. Read More
    May 10th, 2019
  1. Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (Now GLADA) Vs. Vidya Chetal: Determination of disputes concerning validity of imposition of statutory dues arising out of a “deficiency of service” can be undertaken by the Consumer Fora under the provisions of the C.P. Act. Read More
    16th September, 2019
  1. Maharaja Agrasen Hospital & Ors. vs. Master Rishabh Sharma & Ors: Hospital vicariously liable for medical negligence committed by its Doctors. Compensation enhanced. Read More
    16th December, 2019
  1. Administrator Smt. Tara Bai Desai Charitable Opthalmic Trust Hospital, Jodhpur Vs. Managing Director Supreme Elevators India Pvt. Ltd & Ors.: Can A Trust file Consumer Complaint: matter needs to be revisited: Supreme Court Read More
    October 4th, 2019
  1. Shoda Devi Vs. Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital: Supreme Court enhanced award of compensation and said it cannot go restrictive just because the victim is from poor and rural background. Read More
    7th March, 2019
Divya Patwal

VOICE

Translate »