AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Administrator, Smt. Tara Bai Desai Charitable Opthalmic Trust Hospital against the order dated 05.10.2018 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan (in short 'the State Commission') passed in First Appeal No.128/2015.
Brief facts relevant for disposal of the revision petition are that the petitioner filed a consumer complaint bearing No.671 of 2013 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jodhpur (in short 'the District Forum') alleging deficiency against the respondent/opposite party in respect of lift installed in the premises of the petitioner hospital. The District Forum allowed the complaint vide its order dated 16.02.2015 and passed the following order:-
"Therefore complaint of the complainant against the opposite parties is allowed and ordered that opposite parties jointly and severally pay the total amount of Rs.5,90,000/- received for the elevator to the complainant trust along with interest @9% from the date of filing of complaint 25.8.2013 till realization and removed their elevator from the premises of complainant. Apart from this also pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as damages for the mental loss caused to the complainant and cost of complaint of Rs.5,000/- i.e. Total Rs.1,05,000/- within one month."
Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the opposite party preferred an appeal being No.128 of 2015 before the State Commission. The State Commission vide its order dated 05.10.2018 has allowed the appeal and has dismissed the complaint on the ground that the complainant is a trust and a trust is not a 'consumer' within the definition of consumer given in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Hence the present revision petition.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at the admission stage.
Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the complaint has not been filed directly by the trust but by the administrator Smt. Tara Bai Desai Charitable Opthalmic Trust Hospital. Hence, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pratibha Pratisthan and Ors. Vs. Manager, Canara Bank and Ors., (2017) 3 SCC 712 is not applicable in the present matter. The State Commission has not differentiated between a complaint being filed by a trust directly and a complaint being filed by the Administrator, Smt. Tara Bai Desai Charitable Opthalmic Trust Hospital/ Manager of the hospital run by the trust.
I have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have examined the material on record. The complaint has been filed by Administrator, Smt. Tara Bai Desai Charitable Opthalmic Trust Hospital. This clearly means that the Administrator, Smt. Tara Bai Desai Charitable Opthalmic Trust Hospital has filed complaint on behalf of the trust. As the trust is maintaining the hospital, Administrator has no separate identity than working on behalf of the trust. Hence, the complaint would be treated as a complaint as if filed by the trust. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pratibha Pratisthan and Ors. Vs. Manager, Canara Bank and Ors., (2017) 3 SCC 712 has held the following:-
"5. On a plain and simple reading of all above provisions of the Act 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."
From the above, it is clear that the trust cannot be included in the definition of "person" as appearing in the definition of the 'consumer' in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and hence a Trust cannot file a consumer complaint. It is not possible to circumvent the law by filing the complaint by the Administrator, Smt. Tara Bai Desai Charitable Opthalmic Trust Hospital, which is being run by the trust. As against the clear law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above judgment, this Commission would not like to interfere with the impugned order dated 05.10.2018 passed by the State Commission, which does not suffer from any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error. Consequently, the revision petition No.86 of 2019 is dismissed at the admission stage.