CourtKutchehry.com
Tribunals and Commissions(1992) 06 NCDRC CK 0021

A.P.JOAG vs CHAIRMAN, WESTERN INDIA TRUSTEE And EXECUTOR CO.LTD

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · Decided on 20 June 1992 · Citation: 1993 1 CPJ 44

HON’BLE JUDGES
G.G.Loney , Elipe Dharma Rao J.
RESULT
Complaint rejected

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

2 paragraphs · 315 words
1.

THE allegations are made against the opposite parties as regards the deficiency in the discharge of their duties as trustees. THE facts disclosed in the complaint are that complainant''s father late P.N. Joag had created a private trust by executing a deed specifying the terms and conditions and had appointed Western India Trustees and Executors Com. Ltd. as executors. In short, the complainant has alleged that the trustees mis-managed the Trust in the matter of keeping accurate accounts, unlawfully surrendered tenancy rights and failed to furnish the full and accurate information to the beneficiaries of the Trust including the complainant. THE complainant has given the details in his complaint as regards the mis-management of the Trust by the trustees viz. the Opposite Party No.l. THE complainant, therefore, claimed the relief of Rs. 1,50,000/- as compensation for the loss suffered due to the surrender of tenancy rights, and mis-management of Trust resulting into the loss of beneficiaries.

2.

THE complainant was noticed to appear before this Commission for hearing on admission. We have heard the complainant in person. On going through the allegations in the complaint, we find that none of the allegations made in the complaint fall within the scope of the Consumer Protection Act. Nowhere in the complaint it is demonstrated that the complainant is a consumer under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that this complaint is not maintainable under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The allegations of the complainant as regards the mis-management by the Trustees may be worth consideration but it is not within our jurisdiction to hear such complaints. We, therefore, decline to adjudicate upon this complaint for want of jurisdiction and direct the complainant to approach the Court of appropriate jurisdiction for reliefs claimed in this complaint if so advised. Hence, this complaint is rejected. Complaint rejected.