This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Arti Katoch, Principal Bhagwati Public School against the order dated 10.08.2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in First Appeal No.234 of 2016.

2.      Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant had purchased from the respondent/opposite party software and hardware for the smart class room.  However, the same did not function properly, therefore, the consumer complaint being No.40 of 2015 was filed before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Una, (in short ‘the District Forum’).  The District Forum allowed the complaint and ordered to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant/petitioner.

3.      The opposite parties /respondents preferred an appeal bearing No.234 of 2016 against the order of the District Forum.  The State Commission allowed the appeal and order of the District Forum was set aside and complaint was dismissed vide order dated 10.08.2017 of the State Commission.

4.      Hence the present revision petition.

5.      Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at the admission stage.  Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that State Commission has allowed the appeal on the ground that the petitioner was not a consumer under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as the petitioner is involved in commercial activity.  Learned counsel mentioned that the petitioner school is being run by a Trust namely, ‘Bhagvati Educational Trust’, which is a charitable trust and is not involved in commercial activity.  He also stated that the school is recognized by Educational Board of Himachal Pradesh.  Prima facie, the State Commission has treated the school as a commercial entity, whereas it has been established and being run under a trust, which is a charitable institution.

6.      I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have examined the record.  The petitioner has also filed trust deed for Bhagvati Educational Trust, which runs the petitioner’s school.  During the argument, it was asked from the learned counsel whether school is a different entity registered as a society or is a part of the trust.  Learned counsel stated that it is not registered as a separate society or a separate entity, however, it is run by separate management committee.  As the school is not a separate legal entity, it will be considered as a part of the trust and a trust is not a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pratibha Pratisthan & Ors. Vs. Manager, Canara Bank and Ors., (2017) 3 SCC 712.  It has been held that:-

“5.  On a plain and simple reading of all 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.”

7.      Based on the above clear finding of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, ‘Trust’ cannot file a consumer complaint and therefore, whether it is involved in commercial activity or not the complaint filed by the petitioner is not maintainable before any consumer forum and the petitioner has to seek remedy only in a civil court.  The State Commission has already directed so though on a different ground.

8.      Based on the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the revision petition and the same is dismissed in limine. However, the liberty is granted to the petitioner to seek remedy before a civil court, if so advised.