Whether a complaint can be filed by a Trust under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ?

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.

One cannot be a beneficiary of his own wrongs: Supreme Court

Supreme Court decided on a crucial case of custody of a child between the divorced couple and pronounced the judgement in the favor of the Father. While deciding the matter the court observed various factors and circumstances of the case. The Court stated that "it becomes, at times, a difficult choice for the court to decide as to whom the custody should be given. No doubt, paramount consideration is the welfare of the child. However, at times the prevailing circumstances are so puzzling that it becomes difficult to weigh the conflicting parameters and decide on which side the balance tilts".

The couple married sometime in the year 1999. They lived in Faridabad for a short while and thereafter the couple shifted to U.K. soon. A girl child was born to them in the U.K. Soon after when their relationship did not go well, they filed divorce petition in the court of U.K and around the same time the man who had shifted to India also obtained the decree of divorce in Indian court. The girl remained with the father since the legal battle started and the court also decided the matter in his favor.

The case came up before the Supreme Court when the couple's daughter, Vaishali, was 11 years of age, the Bench (comprising of Aftab Alam and Ranjana Prakash Desai, JJ.) decided to meet Vaishali in order to interact with her to ascertain her view point. After meeting her the bench passed the order which stated “In the proceedings held on January 31, 2013, it was agreed between the parties and was also noted in the order passed on that date that the child Vaishali should stay with respondent No.1 (Sukriti Arora), the mother of the child at her residence in Delhi for one month under monitoring by this Court. In continuation of that order, therefore, we direct that Vaishali should stay with her mother, tentatively for one month from today, subject to any further direction that may be passed by this Court in the meanwhile. Ms. Madhavi Divan, one of the counsel representing the petitioner shall hand over the child to her mother-respondent No.1 outside the court room after we complete the passing of this order. Respondent No.1 shall deposit her passport with the Registrar (J-III) of this Court which shall be returned back to her after Vaishali goes back to her father on completion of the term of her stay with respondent No.1. We are informed that Vaishali's school is reopening from April 4, 2013. On behalf of Respondent No.1, it is stated that she will ensure that the child reaches the school in time and is brought back to her residence after school hours. The child's stay with her mother will, in no way, affect her attendance at the school or her studies.

During her stay with the mother, the child will be free to speak to her father on telephone. On behalf of respondent No.1, it was stated that she would not create any obstruction in the way of the child speaking to her father. During the child's stay with her mother, we would like some responsible and competent person to monitor the arrangement. We, accordingly, request Mrs. Sadhana Ramachandran, who works for the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre, to monitor the arrangement on behalf of this Court. Mrs. Ramachandran shall visit the mother and the child at the address noted above on a date and time of her convenience. She would inform respondent No.1 on her mobile phone about the proposed date and time of her visit to the respondent's place. She would see how the relationship between the child and the mother is developing and if need be, she would counsel both the child and the mother. If the father wants to visit the child while she is staying with her mother, he may do so at a time when Mrs. Sadhana Ramachandran is also present there. For the purpose of the visit he will have to take the necessary permission from Mrs. Ramachandran. It is submitted on behalf of Respondent No.1 that she would like to take the child to some resort or some hill station for a brief holiday. We would like the mother and the child to stay in Delhi itself but, in case, both the child and the mother together wish to go outside, they may do so subject to the permission in writing taken from Mrs. Ramachandran. Mrs. Ramachandran would submit a report to this Court within ten days from today. Let this matter be listed for further direction along with the report from Mrs. Ramachandran on April 12, 2013.”

The Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 lays down the principles on which custody disputes are to be decided. Section 7 of this Act empowers the Court to make order as to guardianship. Section 17 enumerates the matters which need to be considered by the Court in appointing guardian and among others, enshrines the principle of welfare of the minor child. This is also stated very eloquently in Section 13.

The appellant argued that the child is living since long with the father. The court in response to the argument stated that "The argument is attractive. But the same overlooks a very significant factor. By flouting various orders, leading even to initiation of contempt proceedings, the appellant has managed to keep custody of the child. He cannot be a beneficiary of his own wrongs. The High Court has referred to these aspects in detail in the impugned judgments.”

Read the full judgement here.