BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD.

F.A.No.1703 OF 2007 AGAINST C.C.NO.62 OF 2005 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM ANATHAPUR

Between
1.                                                 

2.                                                                                   opposite parties No.1 & 2

1.  Rural Development Trust
Rep. by Innayya S/o late Anthaiah
Chairman R.D.T. Anantapur

Respondent/complainant

2.   

3.      Respondents/opposite parties no.3 and 4

Counsel for the Appellant           

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 Counsel for the Respondent No.2

QUORUM:    

&

TWO THOUSAND TEN

            There was no response even though the staff of the complainant’s association appraised the opposite party no.4 of the persisting problem.   

          On thorough investigation and testing it was detected that on account of oil leakage the problems persisted and as such entire engine assembly was replaced as the vehicle was still under warranty as also to ensure customer satisfaction.     

The vehicle was serviced as per the guidelines and certain minor complaints like rattling; headlight focusing etc were attended to.     

After extensive investigation and testing the technical experts of the first opposite party identified the problem as engine hunting on account of malfunction in the gasket intake manifold and thereafter procured the same from their spare purchase department.         

1) Whether the complainant si a consumer within the meaning of Sec.2(1)(d) of the C.P.Act?

2) Whether the vehicle sold by the opposite parties to the complainant suffered from manufacturing defect?

3) To what relief?

POINT NO.1        Now the moot question that falls for our consideration is whether the trust which has filed the complaint before the District forum can be said to be a consumer within the meaning of Sec.2(1) of the C.P.Act. 

         Pratibha Pratisthan & Ors. Vs. Allahabad Bank & Ors”. reported inIV (2007) CPJ 33 (NC) 

“In our view, this submission is required to be accepted because, under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, complaint can be filed by a consumer. Under Section 2(1)(d) ‘consumer’ is defined to mean ‘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—(i) a firm, whether registered or not; (ii) a Hindu Undivided Family; (iii) a Co-operative society; and (iv) every other association of persons whether registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 or not”.

       The National Commission observed that:

“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, sued or are sued. A trustee as such has no distinct legal personality in his representative capacity separate from himself in his personal capacity.”

Finally it was concluded that:

Considering the aforesaid definition of the word ‘person’, a public

Hence, the complainant, Pratibha Pratishthan Trust, which is registered under the Bombay Public

         Consequently the complaint is dismissed. 

                                                                                                                                                                      PRESIDENT

KMK*