Shri Ashok Choudhary, Power of Attorney holder of complainants No. 2 to 12 states that complainants No. 2 to 12 have already settled their dispute with the opposite party. Therefore, they seek to withdraw their claim under the complaint. In view of the statement, claim of complainants No.2 to 12 under this complaint is dismissed as withdrawn. Ms. Manju Saxena, Authorised representative of complainant No.1 states that she has instructions to withdraw the complaint in view of the settlement arrived at between the 185 consumers on whose behalf the complaint has been filed and the opposite party builder. On perusal it is noticed that as per the list of members annexed with the complaint the complaint was filed on behalf of 266 members but settlement is stated to have been arrived at by 185 members. Thus, it is to be seen whether the complainant organization can withdraw the complaint. Learned counsel for the opposite party has contended that after the withdrawal of the claim by complainants No. 2 to 12 the instant complaint, in fact, is a complaint filed by a trust which under the law is not maintainable. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has drawn my attention to para-2 of the complaint wherein it is specifically mentioned that complainant No.1 is a registered public Trust based out of New Delhi, and submitted that it is a settled position in law that for the purpose of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 a “Trust” is not a person as such cannot be a consumer and has no locus standi to file the consumer complaint. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the opposite party has referred to the judgment of Apex Court in the matter of Pratibha Pratisthan & ors. Vs. Manager, Canara Bank and Ors. decided on 07.03.2017 in Civil Appeal No. 3560 of 2008. In the said matter, Hon’ble Supreme Court after taking note of the definition of ‘Complainant’, ‘Consumer’ and ‘Person’ as provided in Section 2 (1) (b), 2 (1) (d) and 2 (1) (m) has held that a Trust does not come within the definition of ‘consumer’ and cannot file a consumer complaint. Relevant observations of the Apex Court is as under: 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 opinion that the National Commission was quite right in holding that the complaint filed by the appellant Trust was not maintainable. 7. We have heard submissions of learned counsel for the parties on the merits of the dispute. However, since we have concluded that the complaint itself was not maintainable, we refrain from making any comment on the merits of the dispute. 8. The appeals are dismissed.” In view of the above, it is clear that Complainant Trust is not a person and, therefore, not a consumer. Consequently, it cannot be a complainant for the purpose of consumer complaint and cannot file the consumer complaint under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. Therefore, after the withdrawal of complaint by complainants No. 2 to 12 the instant complaint filed by the trust is not maintainable. In view of the reasons given above, complaint is dismissed. As a result impleadment applications are dismissed as infructuous, with liberty to the applicants to avail of their legal remedy by approaching the appropriate forum. | 
