UDAY UMESH LALIT, ANIRUDDHA BOSE
Administrator Smt. Tara Bai Desai Charitable Opthalmic Trust Hospital, Jodhpur – Appellant
Versus
Managing Director Supreme Elevators India Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
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:
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.