BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT:

SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

C.C.No. 304/2005 Filed on 24/08/2005

Dated: 15..05..2010

Complainant:

Dr. Nithyanand, Managing Trustee, Humanity Trust of India, IIIrd Floor, Capital Towers, Statue, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv. Rajasekharan Thampi. P.S)

Opposite parties:

1. Reliance Infocomm Ltd., EO 1, Reliance Greens, Motikhavdi, Digvijaygram – P.O., Jamnagar – 361 140, Gujarat State.

2. Neelakanta Kushal, Division Head, Reliance Infocomm Ltd., Amrutha Plaza, Skyline Melody, DPI Junction, Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram – 14.

3. Binil Varghese, Customer Care Executive, Reliance Infocomm Ltd., Amrutha Plaza, Skyline Melody, DPI Jujnction, Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram – 14.

(By Adv. N. Padmini)

This O.P having been heard on 31..03..2010, the Forum on 15..05..2010 delivered the following:

ORDER

SHRI.G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT:

The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that, the complainant is conducting a 'Suicide Prevention Centre' by the name "Karmayogu" under the sponsorship of Humanity Trust of India, a Charitable Trust, that as "Karmayogu" is mainly giving free counselling through telephone, for 24 hours it should have a telephone at the Centre and the phone should be familiar with the public, that the 2^nd & 3^rd opposite parties approached the complainant and convinced him about the attractive offer of the 1^st opposite party Reliance Company, that as per the offer if Rs.500/- and an additional payment of Rs.50/- is paid Reliance to Reliance calls would be free, that the complainant accepted the said offer and applied for a telephone connection and on July 2004 opposite parties installed a fixed line and thereby connection was given to the complainant with telephone No. 0471-3097600. It is further submitted by the complainant that the telephonic counselling as a charitable work, the complainant made wide publicity for the telephone number allotted to him. More than Fifty thousand brochures and two lakhs notices were distributed all over the district to establish the number, that the Suicide Prevention Programme of the Centre was also given the same telephone number. An amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- was spent for this advertisement. As a result of the wide publicity there was large response from the general public, that the complainant regularly paid all the bills without any delay through the opposite parties collection agent. It is further submitted that from the beginning almost all the time the above said phone was completely out of order, the incoming and outgoing calls were barred without any reason. Complainant complained many times to opposite parties, but opposite parties never turned up nor rectified the defects. Finally on 7/6/2005, the complainant requested the opposite parties to disconnect the phone, but the connection was not disconnected, that all the difficulties occurred to the complainant due to the mismanagement and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint to direct opposite parteis to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- towards the expense incurred due to the publicity of the telephone number in general public along with Rs. 3,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,500/- towards cost.

2. Opposite parties filed version contending that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine, that the connection was taken by M/s. Humanity Trust of India, that the complainant has to adduce proper evidence to show that he is the Managing Trustee of M/s. Humanity Trust of India, and that he is empowered to file cases for and on behalf of the said organisation, that opposite parties never approached any one and canvassed for connection, if an additional amount is paid the opposite parties will give Reliance to Reliance calls absolutely free. If complainant opted for the said scheme he would have definitely got the benefit. Complainant in the guise of charitable activity was making money, that incoming calls and outgoing calls were never barred without any reason, only if there are outstanding dues, calls will be barred. The outgoing calls of Humanity Trust of India was barred as early as March 2005 because they had not paid the dues, that incoming calls were also barred as the payment was not made, that the complainant invited difficulties by not paying dues, that the allegations in the said notices were baseless, opposite parties never acted in a negligent manner to any customer, that the complainant never suffered any loss or injury and complainant is not entitled for any compensation. The whole complaint is a false and vexatious one filed only to harass the opposite parties. Hence opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint with compensatory cost.

3. The points that arise for consideration are:

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act?

    

2. Whether the complaint is maintainable?

    

3. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

    

4. Whether complainant is entitled to compensation, if so, at what amount?

In support of the complaint, complainant has filed an affidavit of himself as PW1 in lieu of examination in chief. In his affidavit complainant has mentioned 25 documents but furnished only 10 documents which have been marked as Exts. P1 to P10. Opposite parties has not filed affidavit or documents.

4. Points (i) to (iv): It has been the case of the complainant that he is conducting a 'Suicide Prevention Centre' along with other programmes under the sponsorship of Humanity Trust of India, that the main object of the centre is to give advice to the public who are facing problems in their lives, that the complainant is the Managing Trustee who applied for a phone connection on assurance of attractive offer of the opposite parties, that on July 2004, opposite parties installed a fixed line and thereby connection was given to him with telephone No. 0471-3097600, that complainant regularly paid bills without any delay, while so the said phone was completely out of order and subsequently incoming and outgoing calls were barred without reason which badly affected the functioning of the centre thereby complainant has suffered huge loss. Opposite parties resisted the complainant by submitting that complaint itself is not maintainable either in law or on facts, that the connection was taken by M/s. Humanity Trust of India, that complainant has to adduce proper evidence to show that he is the Managing Trustee of M/s. Humanity Trust of India and that he is empowered to file case for and on behalf of the said organisation.

5. It is to be noted that, the complaint is filed by Dr. Nithyanand, Managing Trustee, Humanity Trust of India. As per the Consumer Protection Act, complaint can be filed by a consumer. As per Section 2(1)(d) of the said Act consumer means any person who buys goods or hires or avails of any services for consideration. The word person is also defined under Section 2(1)(m) which includes a firm, a Hindu Undivided Family, a Co-operative society and every other association of persons whether registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 or not.

6. Opposite party relies on the decision of the Hon'ble National Commission in Pratibha Prasthan and Others Vs. Allahabad and Others (2008 NCJ 101(NC) wherein it is held: “A trust, unlike a company, has no legal personality; thus, it cannot own property for entering into contracts, sue or are sued. It is the trustees who own the trust property, enter into contracts, sue or are sued. A trustee as such has no distinct legal personality in his representative capacity separate from himself in his personal capacity”.

Considering the aforesaid definition of the word 'person', a public trust is not 'person' which can be considered to be a 'consumer' entitled to file complaint before the Consumer Forum. The reasons are:

1. trust is not included in the definition of the word 'person'. The Legislature included Co-operative Society under the definition 'person' but not 'public trust':

2. Secondly, trust is not a legal entity.

Complainant has stated that he is the Managing Trustee of Humanity Trust of India. It is not clear from the complaint or affidavit in support of the complaint, whether the aforesaid Trust is a public trust or Private Trust. Anyway Trust includes public trust and private Trust. As stated above Trust cannot be considered to be 'person' which can file a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act. Complainant has never mentioned in the complaint as well as affidavit how many trustees are there in Trusts, who are other trustees, whether other trustees have authorised him to file the complaint on behalf of other trustees, nor had complainant furnished any documents to show the locus standi of the complainant to file the complaint on behalf of Trust. In this case, it is to be noted that all the trustees are not made party – complainants. Complainant has not adduced sufficient evidence to show that he is the Managing Trustee of M/s. Humanity of Trust of India and that he is empowered to file cases for and on behalf of other trustees of the said Trust. In view of the above, we find there is considerable force in the contentions of the opposite parties that complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. Hence we hold complainant alone cannot become a consumer and complaint is not maintainable without making all the Trustees as complainants. Since first and second points are answered against the complainant, we need not discuss other points under consideration. Complaint is deserved to be dismissed.

In the result, complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 15^th day of May, 2010.

G. SIVAPRASAD,

PRESIDENT.

BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

ad.

C.C.No.304/2005

APPENDIX

I. Complainant's witness:

PW1 : Dr. Nithyanand

II. Complainant's documents:

P1 : Photograph

P2 : Brochure and notice

P3 : The advertisement in the Hindu Daily Newspaper dated 27/09/2004

P4 : Paper cuttings regarding suicide prevention

P5 : Paper cuttings regarding phone in programme

P6 : Paper cuttings regarding Dial before Divorce

P7 : Paper cuttings regarding Yatra against Suicide

P8 : Paper cuttings of mass painting against suicide

P9 : Legal notice dated 29/06/2005

P10 : Acknowledgment cards

III. Opposite parties' witness : NIL

IV. Opposite parties' documents : NIL

PRESIDENT