Trust Cannot File Consumer Complaint: Kerala State Commission Sets Aside Order Holding Devaswom Committee's Complaint Maintainable
The Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram, has held that a trust cannot maintain a consumer complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as the Supreme Court's ruling in Prathibha Pratisthan v. Manager, Canara Bank continues to be the law operating in the field until a larger Bench decides the issue. A Bench comprising Justice B. Sudheendra...
The Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram, has held that a trust cannot maintain a consumer complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as the Supreme Court's ruling in Prathibha Pratisthan v. Manager, Canara Bank continues to be the law operating in the field until a larger Bench decides the issue.
A Bench comprising Justice B. Sudheendra Kumar (President), Ajith Kumar D. (Judicial Member) and K.R. Radhakrishnan (Member) allowed a revision petition filed by the opposite party, set aside an order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam, and dismissed the consumer complaint filed by the Cochin Thirumala Devaswom Committee as not maintainable.
Facts
The dispute arose from Consumer Complaint No. 371/2019 before the District Commission, Ernakulam, in which the Cochin Thirumala Devaswom Committee was the complainant and Anand G. Kamath, of M/s Lalit Boiler Works, Aluva, was the opposite party.
During the proceedings, Kamath filed I.A. No. 18/2022 seeking dismissal of the complaint on the ground that the complainant was a trust. After hearing both sides, the District Commission dismissed the application and held that the complaint was maintainable.
Aggrieved, Kamath approached the State Commission in revision. He later died, and his legal heirs were brought on record as additional revision petitioners.
Contentions
The opposite party's case was that the complaint was not maintainable because the complainant was a trust, and he sought its dismissal on that ground.
In its objection before the District Commission, the Devaswom Committee admitted that it was a trust. It nevertheless contended that a complaint filed by a trust is maintainable under the Act. The District Commission accepted this contention.
Observations & Decision
The Commission framed the short question for decision as whether the complaint was maintainable merely because the complainant is a trust. It noted that the complainant's status as a trust was not disputed.
The Bench then relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Prathibha Pratisthan v. Manager, Canara Bank (2017 (2) KHC 420 : AIR 2017 SC 1303), which held that a trust is not a “person” as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and hence cannot be a complainant under the Act.
The Commission acknowledged that this decision had since been referred to a larger Bench in Administrator, Smt. Tara Bai Desai Charitable Opthalmic Trust Hospital, Jodhpur v. Managing Director, Supreme Elevators India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (2019 SCC OnLine SC 2399). It held, however, that because the question of law is pending before a larger Bench, the law presently operating in the field must be followed until that Bench decides the issue. The law settled in Prathibha Pratisthan therefore governed the case.
Holding that a trust cannot be a complainant under the Consumer Protection Act, the Commission concluded that the District Commission's order holding the complaint maintainable could not be sustained.
Allowing the revision petition, the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission set aside the District Commission's order on I.A. No. 18/2022. It allowed the application seeking dismissal of the complaint and dismissed Consumer Complaint No. 371/2019 as not maintainable.