JUSTICE V.K.JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

          This revision petition is directed against the order of the State Commission dated 11.08.2016 whereby an appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of the District Forum was partly allowed.  The complaint was instituted by ‘Sanrakshan’ which is registered under Indian Trust Act, 1882.  The case of the complainant is that a plot with the petitioner Board was booked by one Yogendra Prasad in the year 1978 depositing a sum of Rs.2,000/- as earnest money but the plot was not provided to him.  The complainant therefore, approached the concerned District Forum by way of a Consumer Complaint.  The District Forum directed the petitioner to make arrangement to allot the land to Mr. Yogendra Prasad within six months at the existing price, subject to his paying the said price.  In the alternative, refund of the amount deposited with the petitioner was directed with 12% interest and cost quantified at Rs.1,000/-.  The refund was to be made only if so desired by Mr. Yogendra Prasad. 

2.      Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal.  The State Commission directed that if the amount was sought to be refunded, the same be refunded with interest as per existing rates of interest as per statutory rules of the Board.  Being dis-satisfied, the petitioner Board is before this Commission by way of this revision petition. 

3.      No one is appearing for the complainant Sanrakshan but a letter has been received from Sh. Yogendra Prasad seeking dismissal of the revision petition.  The said letter clearly shows that the complainant is fully aware of the institution of this revision petition.  Therefore, no fresh notice needs to be served upon the complainant. 

4.      The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Sanrakshan being a Trust is not competent to institute a Consumer Complaint.  Reliance in this regard is placed upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pratibha Pratisthan & Ors. Vs. Manager, Canara Bank & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 3560 of 2008 and Civil Appeal No. 3561 of 2008 decided on 07.03.2017.

          In Pratibha Pratisthan (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the question as to whether a complaint can be filed by a Trust under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Answering the question in negative, the Hon’ble Supreme Court inter-alia observed and held as under:

“2.     Section 2 (c) of the Act provides for a complainant making a complaint, inter alia, for an unfair trade practice or a restrictive trade practice adopted by any trader or service provider; a complaint in respect of goods (brought by a complainant) suffering from one or more defects; a complaint of deficiency in services hired or availed of aby a complainant and so on.  A complainant is defined in Section 2 (b) of the Act in the following words:

          b)      “complainant” means –

                   (i)      a consumer; or

           (ii)     any voluntary consumer association registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) or under any other law for the time being in force; or

1. the Central Government or any State Government; or

2. one or more consumers, where there are numerous

           consumers having the same interest;

3. in case of death of a consumer, his legal heir or

           representative; who or which makes a complaint;

3.      It is quite clear from the above definition of a complainant that it does not include a Trust.  But does a Trust come within the definition of a consumer?

          A consumer has been defined in Section 2(d) of the Act as follows:

          (d)     “consumer” means any person who, -

(i)      buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or

(ii)      hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person; but does not include a person who avails of such services of any commercial purpose;

          Explanation – For the purposes of this clause, “commercial purpose” does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment;

4.  A reading of the definition of the words ‘complaint’, ‘complainant’ and ‘consumer’ makes it clear that a Trust cannot invoke the provisions of the Act in respect of any allegation on the basis of which a complaint could be made.  To put this beyond any doubt, the word ‘person’ has also been defined in the Act and Section 2 (m) thereof defines a person as follows:

          (m)    ‘person’ includes, -

          (i)      a firm whether registered or not;

(ii)      a Hindu undivided family;

(iii)     a co-operative society;

(iv)    every other association of persons whether registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (21 of 1860) or not;

5.       On a plain and simple reading of all the 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.

6.       In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the National Commission was quite right in holding that the complaint filed by the Appellant Trust was not maintainable”.  

5.      For the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned orders cannot be sustained and the same are accordingly set aside.  It is made clear that disposal of the complaint filed through Sanrakshan will not come in the way of Mr. Yogendra Prasad availing such other remedy as may be open to him in law.  The revision petition stands disposed of.