KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
COMPLAINT NO. 03/2015
ORDER DATED. 11-09-2018
PRESENT:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI.S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN :PRESIDENT
SRI. T.S.P. MOOSATH : JUDICIAL MEMBER
RANJIT R : MEMBER
COMPLAINANT:
Vidya International charitable trust,
Vidya academy of science and technology,
Technical campus, Kilimanoor, Trivandrum- 695602,
Having its registered office at 583/XV- Vidya campus,
Thalakottukara P.O, Trichur- 680 501 and represented by its
Manager, Finance and operation Abith Ganesh.
(By Adv. G.S. Kalkura )
OPPOSITE PARTIES :
- Delta machines and spares,
39/3530, Manikath building, Ravipuram road,
Valanjambalam, Cochin 682 016,
Represented by Managing Partner, C.K. Dileepkumar.
- Dileepkumar C.K,
Managing Partner, M/s. Delta machines and spares,
39/3530, Manikath building, Ravipuram road, Valanjambalam,
Cochin. 682 016.
(By Adv. Baby M. Perumpillil)
- B.S. Pyromatic India private ltd,
27/1, X11 Avenue, Ashok Nagar, Chennai- 83,
Represented by Ms. Saivani, managing director,
B.S. Pyromatic India (P) Ltd, 27/1, XII Avenue,
Ashok Nagar, Chennai.83
ORDER
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI.S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN :PRESIDENT
This complaint is filed by a trust viz. Vidya International Charitable Trust, alleging deficiency in service by opposite parties, to claim compensation. Opposite parties 1 and 2 in their version filed jointly, resisting the claim have challenged maintainability of the complaint stating that complainant is not a consumer. Considering the challenge over maintainability of the complaint, it was considered as a primary point before proceeding with the enquiry on the complaint.
2. We heard counsel on both sides. Learned counsel for opposite party 1 and 2 relying on ‘ Pratibha Pratishtan and others vs Manager, Canara Bank and others’ (2017 NCJ 666 (SC)) submitted that a trust does not come within the definition of ‘person ‘ under Section 2(m) of the Consumer Protection Act and as such a complaint at its instance under the Act is not maintainable. In order to maintain a complaint, complainant has to show that he is a consumer. Who can be a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act has been defined u/s 2(d) of the Act. That sub section clearly says that consumer must be a person who buys any goods for consideration or avails of service by paying or promising to pay or partly paying the price. Section 2(m) of the Consumer Protection Act defines who also can be included under the term term “person”. The Apex Court has made clear that the above definition does not include a trust and as such it cannot be considered as a person who can claim the status of a consumer. When that be so, complaint filed by the trust is not maintainable.
3. We dismiss the complaint as not maintainable with liberty to complainant to approach competent forum for redressal of its grievance, if so advised. Time taken for prosecution of the consumer complaint can be sought to be exempted invoking section 14 of the Limitation Act.
Complaint is dismissed with no order as to cost.
JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN :PRESIDENT
T.S.P. MOOSATH : JUDICIAL MEMBER
RANJIT R : MEMBER
Raj/-Ekm
