Public Charitable Trust Not A Person Under Consumer Protection Law: NCDRC
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Dr. Sadhna Shanker, held that a public charitable trust is not a person under the Act and cannot file a consumer complaint. Brief Facts of the Case The complainant, a charitable trust focused on producing quality Ayurvedic medicine, purchased two pieces of equipment from the dealer for Rs. 56 lakhs. Technical...
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Dr. Sadhna Shanker, held that a public charitable trust is not a person under the Act and cannot file a consumer complaint.
Brief Facts of the Case
The complainant, a charitable trust focused on producing quality Ayurvedic medicine, purchased two pieces of equipment from the dealer for Rs. 56 lakhs. Technical experts from the manufacturer attempted installation on two occasions but failed to produce any results. Despite multiple trials, the equipment remained non-functional and incompatible with the existing HPTLC setup. The complainant alleged that the equipment was defective and filed a complaint before the state commission of Kerala. The state commission partly allowed the complaint and directed the manufacturer to the refund an amount of Rs.56 lakhs alongwith interest @12% p.a. and cost of Rs. 10,000. Aggrieved by the state commission's order, the manufacturer appealed to the National Commission.
Contentions of the Opposite Party
The dealer and manufacturer argued that the complainant, being a public trust, was not a “person” under Section 2(1)(m) of the Consumer Protection Act and, therefore, did not qualify as a “consumer” within the meaning of the Act, making the complaint non-maintainable. It was also contended that the State Commission lacked the pecuniary jurisdiction to handle the complaint. Furthermore, it was argued that the warranty conditions were limited to 12 months from the date of installation or 13 months from the date of shipment. Since the equipment was installed by the complainant beyond the warranty period, it was argued that the complainant had no legal right to claim damages or compensation, and the dealer was not liable for any deficiency in service.
Observations by the National Commission
The National Commission observed that the complainant in this case is a charitable trust and according to the law, a trust is not a person under Section 2(1)(m) of the Act and. Consequently, it was observed that the State Commission's order was without jurisdiction, citing the Supreme Court judgment in Pratibha Pratisthan and Ors. vs. Manager, Canara Bank and Ors. (2017) 3 SCC 712, rendering the State Commission's order legally unsustainable. As a result, the National Commission allowed the appeal and the State Commission's order was overruled. However, the complainant was granted the liberty to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of its grievances in accordance with the law.
Case Title: Anchrom Lab Supplies & Anr Vs. Aryavaidyasala
Case Number: F.A. No. 1429/2017