SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Uday Umesh Lalit, Aniruddha Bose, JJ.
Administrator Smt. Tara Bai Desai Charitable Opthalmic Trust Hospital, Jodhpur - Petitioner
Vs.
Managing Director Supreme Elevators India Pvt. Ltd & Ors. - Respondents
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.18636 OF 2019
Decided On : 04-10-2019
ORDER :
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The principal issue involved in the matter is whether a Charitable Trust could maintain an action under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 (for short “the Act”) and claim compensation under the Act.
3. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jodhpur accepted the claim of the Complainant-Trust and directed the respondents to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.5,90,000/- by way of compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum. However, the appeal arising therefrom was allowed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Jaipur on the ground that a Trust could not be a “consumer” within the meaning of the Act. The view taken by the State Commission was upheld by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which order is presently under challenge.
4. The reliance was placed on a decision of this Court delivered in Pratibha Pratisthan & Others v. Manager, Canara Bank & Others, reported in (2017) 3 SCC 712, to hold that a “trust” would not be a “person” and consequently not a “consumer” within the meaning of the provisions of the Act. It was held by this Court:
5. It may be mentioned here that in Kalpavruksha Charitable Trust vs. Toshniwal Brothers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd., (2000)1 SCC 512 the complainant was a registered Charitable Trust and the issue that arose was whether the machinery in question was installed for commercial purpose or not. The question whether the Trust could maintain an action did not squarely arise for consideration.
6. The expressions “complainant”, “consumer”, and “person” have respectively been defined in Sections 2(1)(b), 2(1)(d) and 2(1)(m) of the Act as under:
(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; who or which makes a complaint; 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;”
Section 2(1)(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 for 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;”
Section 2(1)(m) “person” includes—
(i) a firm whether registered or not;
(ii) a Hindu undivided family;
(iii) a cooperative society;
(iv) every other association of persons whether registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (21 of 1860) or not;”
7. According to Sect
Pratibha Pratisthan & Others v. Manager, Canara Bank & Others
Kalpavruksha Charitable Trust vs. Toshniwal Brothers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.