In an appeal before the Supreme Court today, a question was raised whether a Trust can file a complaint under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Earlier on this question The National Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission constituted under the same act denied accepting the fact that a Trust can file a complaint being a consumer. Later it came before the Apex Court and the Supreme Court too answered it negatively confirming that a Trust has no title to file a complaint under the said provisions.
The act empowers a complainant to complain for an unfair trade practice or a restrictive trade practice adopted by any trader or service provider; a complaint in respect of goods (bought by a complainant) suffering from one or more defects; a complaint of deficiency in services hired or availed of by a complainant and so on. The court also defined a complainant referring to the section of the act which defines the complainant as "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 (iii) the Central Government or any State Government; or (iv) one or more consumers, where there are numerous consumers having the same interest; (v) in case of death of a consumer, his legal heir or representative ; who or which makes a complaint.
The court confirmed that according the above mentioned definition of a complainant a Trust is not included and hence cannot be a complainant. The court further explained and answered to the question whether a Trust can be a 'Consumer". To which the court referred to the provisions of the act which defines a consumer as "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.
The Supreme Court said "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.
It further said that a Trust is also not a person as per the definition of a person defined in the act and hence 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".
Read the judgement here.
The act empowers a complainant to complain for an unfair trade practice or a restrictive trade practice adopted by any trader or service provider; a complaint in respect of goods (bought by a complainant) suffering from one or more defects; a complaint of deficiency in services hired or availed of by a complainant and so on. The court also defined a complainant referring to the section of the act which defines the complainant as "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 (iii) the Central Government or any State Government; or (iv) one or more consumers, where there are numerous consumers having the same interest; (v) in case of death of a consumer, his legal heir or representative ; who or which makes a complaint.
The court confirmed that according the above mentioned definition of a complainant a Trust is not included and hence cannot be a complainant. The court further explained and answered to the question whether a Trust can be a 'Consumer". To which the court referred to the provisions of the act which defines a consumer as "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.
The Supreme Court said "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.
It further said that a Trust is also not a person as per the definition of a person defined in the act and hence 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".
Read the judgement here.
No comments:
Post a Comment