6th May,2022 preliminary round 1(slot1)

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT:

ISSUE 1: Whether the complaint led by Second Innings Old Age Charitable Trust
is maintainable or not?

Not maintainable because;

1. Trust does not fall under the definition of ‘consumer’ under the sec 2(47), 2(31) & 2(5) of
COPRA,2019
2. Nor can be termed as juristic person. Hence no locus standi to appear this court.

Case laws:
Tara Bai Desai. Managing Director, Supreme Elevators India Pet.Ltd.,2019

1. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Administrator, Smt. Tara Bai Desai
Charitable Opthalmic Trust Hospital against the order dated 5.10.2018 of the State Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in First Appeal
No. 128/2015.

2. 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 16.2.2015 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.”

3. 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 5.10.2018 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.

4. 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. v. Manager, Canara Bank
and Ors., IV (2017) CPJ 7 (SC)=VII (2017) SLT 160=(2017) 3 SCC 712, is not applicable in the
fi
 6th May,2022 preliminary round 1(slot1)
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.

5. 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. v. Manager, Canara Bank and Ors. (supra), has held the following:

6. 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.”

7. 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.

SECONDLY,
1.A juristic person is also known as a legal person or a legal entity. A juristic person is
one to which law attributes legal personality. The legal personality is an artificial
creation of law, conferred upon entities other than individual human beings. A juristic
person is capable of suing and being sued in a Court of law. Therefore, a "Trust" is not
a juristic person or a legal entity, as the juristic person has a legal existence of its own
and hence it is capable of suing and being sued in a Court of law. Thus, it appears that
a "Trust" is not like a body corporate, which has a legal existence of its own and
therefore can appoint an agent. The above discussion would make it clear that a "Trust"
is not a body corporate.

2.A mere combination of persons or coming together of persons without anything more,
without any intention to have a joint venture or carry on some common activity with a
common understanding and purpose would not convert two or more persons into a body
of individuals/association of persons.»

3.It can be noted that a trust, unlike a company, has no legal personality; thus, it cannot
own property for entering into contracts, sue or are sued. It is the trustees who own the
 6th May,2022 preliminary round 1(slot1)
trust property, enter into contracts, sued or are sued. A trustee as such has no distinet
legal personality in his representative capacity separate from himself in his personal
capacity.

4.Considering the aforesaid definition of the word 'person', a public trust is not 'person
which can be considered to be a 'consumer' entitled to file complaint before the
consumer forum. The reasons are:
(i) trust is not included in the definition of the word 'person'. The Legislature included
co-operative society under the definition 'person' but not 'public trust'; (il) secondly,
trust is not a legal entity.

5. Further, the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, defines the trustee as a person in whom
either alone or in association with other persons, the trust property is vested and
includes the Manager. For this, it is to be stated that all the trustees are not made party-
complainants. Hence, we hold that the complaints filed by the Trust are not
maintainable for the reasons that the Trust is not 'person' entitled to file complaint under
the Consumer Protection Act, 1986; and, also that complaint is filed by Trust without
making the all the Trustees as Complainants. Hence, these complaints are not required
to be entertained .

6.In view of above-mentioned law, it is humbly submitted before the court that the
complaint by the complainant is not maintainable since trust is not a juristic person and
does not fall under the definition of consumer or complainant. Hence, the complaint is
not maintainable and the complainant cannot approach the Hon'ble Court under the
mentioned jurisdiction since the complainants has no locus stand to appear before this
court as they are not a ‘consumer’.

7. 'Trust' cannot file a consumer complaint and therefore, whether it is involved in

commercial activity or not the complaint filed by the petitioner is not maintainable
before any consumer forum and the petitioner has to seek remedy only in a civil court."
 6th May,2022 preliminary round 1(slot1)

CASE LAWS

South Indian Education society v. Bank of India ,2018

Judgment ;
1.The complainant, which was initially registered as a society under the provisions of Societies
Registration Act, 1860, was later registered as a Public Charitable Trust under the provisions of
the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (now known as the Maharashtra Public Trust Act) and the
rules made thereunder. It is alleged that as a Public Charitable Trust, the complainant is required
to invest their funds in instruments approved by the O ce of Charity Commissioner and since
instrument in xed deposits of Nationalized and Scheduled Banks is one of the modes of
investment speci ed in Section 11 (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the complainant has been
investing its funds in such xed deposits. The complainant claims to be a consumer of the
opposite party banks and is aggrieved on account of the banks having allowed allegedly
fraudulent over draft facilities against the xed deposits made by it with the said banks. The
complainant is alleging defects / de ciencies in the service rendered to it by the said banks and is
seeking return of the amount deposited with the banks along with interest and compensation.

2. The complaints have been resisted by the banks which have taken a preliminary objection that
a Civil Court and not a Consumer Forum is the appropriate Forum for complaints of this nature
involving complicated / disputed questions of facts which cannot be decided in summary
proceedings, particularly when there are allegations of forgery and conspiracy.

4. When this matter came up for hearing on 10.9.2018, the learned counsel for the opposite party
sought liberty to le an application for treating the issue as to whether the complainant can be
said to be a consumer within the Consumer Protection Act or not, as a preliminary issue.
Thereupon, the learned senior counsel for the complainant stated on instructions that the
complainant would have no objection to the aforesaid issue being treated and decided as a
preliminary issue, even without the opposite party having to move an application for this purpose.
Hence, the arguments on the above referred preliminary issue have been heard.

5. In Pratibha Pratisthan (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the question as to
whether a complaint can be led by a Trust under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act,
1986. Answering the question in negative, the Hon’ble Supreme Court inter-alia observed and
held as under:

'2. Section 2(c) of the Act provides for a complainant making a complaint, inter-alia for an unfair
trade practice r a restrictive trade practice adopted by any trader or service provider; a complaint
in respect of goods (brought by a complainant)su ering from one or more defects; a complaint of
de ciency in services hired or availed of aby a complainant and so on. A complainant is de ned in
Section 2(b) of the Act in the following words:

b) 'complainant' means –

(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

1. the Central Government or any State Government; or

2. one or more consumers, where there are numerous consumers having the same interest;
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
ff
ffi
fi
 6th May,2022 preliminary round 1(slot1)
3. in case of death of a consumer, his legal heir or representative; who or which makes a
complaint;

3. It is quite clear from the above de nition of a complainant that it does not include a Trust. But
does a Trust come within the de nition of a consumer?

A consumer has been de ned in Section 2(d) of the Act as follows:

(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 bene ciary
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 rst mentioned person; but does not include
a person who avails of such services of 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;

4. A reading of the de nition of the words ‘complaint’, ‘complainant’ and ‘consumer’ makes it
clear that a Trust cannot invoke the provisions of the Act in respect of any allegation on the basis
of which a complaint could be made. To put this beyond any doubt, the word ‘person’ has also
been de ned in the Act and Section 2(m) thereof de nes a person as follows:

(m) ‘person’ includes, -

(i) a rm whether registered or not;

(ii) a Hindu undivided family;

(iii) a co-operative society;

(iv) every other association of persons whether registered under the Societies Registration Act,
1860 (21 of 1860) or not;

5. On a plain and simple reading of all the 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 le
a consumer dispute under the provisions of the Act.

6. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the National Commission was quite right in
holding that the complainant led by the Appellant Trust was not maintainable'.

6. In his a davit dated 15.2.2018, the Joint Hony. Secretary of the complainant has inter-alia
stated that the complainant was issued a certi cate of registration under the Societies
Registration Act, 1860 on 21.04.1932. It is further stated in the said a davit that thereafter, in
exercise of the powers under Section 1(4) of the Bombay Public Trust Act, Government of
Maharashtra made the provisions of the said Act applicable to the societies registered under the
Societies Registration Act, 1860, with e ect from 01.2.1961, subject to the provisions of Section
87 of the said Act. It is further stated that the societies formed for a religious or charitable purpose
or for both and registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 are liable to be registered
under Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 and the complainant therefore was required to register itself
fi
fi
ffi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
ff
fi
fi
fi
ffi
fi
fi
 6th May,2022 preliminary round 1(slot1)
as a Public Charitable Trust. It is therefore an admitted position that the complainant has also
been registered as a Public Charitable Trust under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trust Act,
1950.

7. In his a davit dated 09.3.2018, Mr. Shankaran Ghosh, Secretary of the complainant inter-alia
stated that he was ling copies of ITR-7 which is the income tax return of the complainant for the
Assessment Year 2014-15 and 2015-16 and that the complainant has also obtained exemption
under Section 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is evident from the said a davit and the
documents annexed thereto that the complainant has been ling income tax return using form
ITR-7. In the column meant for disclosing the status of the assesse, the complainant is shown as
'AOP (Trust)'. During the course of arguments, it was not disputed before me that the complainant
is not ling income tax return using the ITR form meant for societies simpliciter, which are not
registered as Public Trust.

8. It is thus evident that though the complainant has not been deregistered as a society, it has got
itself registered under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trust Act and the rules framed
thereunder. The term ‘consumer’ has been de ned in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection
Act and means a person buying goods or hiring or availing services for a consideration. Therefore,
proceeding on the premise that the complainant functions in two capacities, one as a society
registered under the Societies Registration Act and the second as a Public Trust registered under
the provisions of the Bombay Public Trust Act, the question for consideration is as to whether the
services of the banks were hired or availed by the complainant as a Trust or as a Society. Though,
as rightly contended by the learned senior counsel for the complainant, a Society being an
association of persons is included in the de nition of ‘person’ given in Section 2(1)(m) of the
Consumer Protection Act, it would not qualify as a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of Consumer
Protection Act, if it is shown that it is also registered as a Public Trust and the services of the bank
were hired or availed by it in its capacity as a Public Trust.

9. In para 4(a) of the consumer complaint, the complainant has stated as under:

'As a public charitable trust, the complainant is required to invest their funds in instruments
approved by the o ce of the Charity Commissioner, and as speci ed in S.11(3) of the Income Tax
Act, 1961 and investments in xed deposits in public sector banks is one of the approved modes
of investments. The complainant has been investing their funds in xed deposits with various
nationalized and scheduled banks, to safely maximize the returns on their funds'.

It would thus be seen that the funds invested by the complainant were the funds available to it in
its capacity as a Public Charitable Trust. Therefore, it can hardly be disputed that the services of
the banks were hired or availed by the complainant in its capacity as a Public Charitable Trust
registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act and not as a society, registered under the
provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Therefore, in view of the decision rendered by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pratibha Pratisthan (supra), the complainant, it being a Public Trust,
cannot be said to be a consumer.

10. It was submitted by the learned senior counsel for the complainant that the o ce of Charity
Commissioner is required to maintain a Directory of Public Trusts and has divided them into six
categories including a category comprising only the societies registered under the Societies
Registration Act, 1860, which indicates di erence between a Trust Simpliciter and a society
additionally registered as a Trust. The aforesaid segregation of Trusts by the Charity
Commissioner, in my view is of no consequence since despite the said segregation a society
registered as a Public Trust clothes itself with the character of a Trust, as far as its activities as a
Trust are concerned.

11. It was also pointed out by the learned senior counsel for the complainant that while allocating
Permanent Account Numbers to an assesse the Income Tax Department uses the character T as
the fourth character of the PAN whereas the character A is used while allocating PAN Number to a
society. It is pointed out that PAN issued to the complainant is AAAAS6062R using the character
A and not the character T as the fourth character of the PAN, which signi es that the complainant
is an Association of a person and not a Trust. I however, nd no merit in the contention since in its
income tax return itself, the complainant declared its status as AOP (Trust), meaning thereby that
fi
ffi
ffi
fi
fi
ff
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
ffi
ffi
 6th May,2022 preliminary round 1(slot1)
it was a Trust falling under the category of Association of persons. Not only that, the complainant
has also availed exemption available to a Trust under Section 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act,
1961. Therefore, there is no escape from the conclusion that despite being initially registered as a
Society, the complainant is also a Trust and in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Pratibha Pratisthan (supra), it cannot invoke the provisions of Consumer Protection Act where
the services, subject matter of the consumer complaint were hired or availed as a Trust and not as
a Society.

12. Both the parties relied upon the decision of the Bombay High Court in Shyamabai & Ors. Vs.
Madan Mohan Mandir Sanstha [2010 (2) Mh. L.J., where one of the issues was whether in the
absence of registration of a Public Trust, in addition, under the Societies Registration Act, the
provisions of the said Act would apply to such a Public Trust.

N.M. Nabeesa v. State of Kerala,2019

Kerala High Court: B Sudheendra Kumar, J. allowed the petition and

quashed the complaint and further proceedings against the petitioners
which were led by the Respondent 2.
In the instant case, Respondent 2, Branch Manager, had led a complaint
against the petitioners, trustees of a trust, alleging offence under Section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Hence, the instant criminal
cases had been led by petitioners, praying for quashing the complaint and
further proceedings against them. The Court appointed Advocate Jamshed
Ha z as amicus curiae.
The learned counsel for the petitioners, Shaji Chirayath had argued that no
successful prosecution against the petitioners, invoking the provisions
under Section 141 of the NI Act, could be sustained, as the “Trust” was not
an “association of individuals”. The learned counsel for the Respondent 2,
Salil Narayanan K.A. argued that the “Trust” was an “association of
individuals” and hence, the petitioners were vicariously liable under
Section 141 of the NI Act. The learned amicus curiae, Jamshed Ha z
submitted that the “Trust” will not come within the ambit of “association
of individuals” and hence, the provisions of Section 141 of the NI Act
could not be made applicable to prosecute the petitioners under Section
138 of the NI Act.
The rst issue involved in the instant case was that the “trust” was a body
corporate or not. As per the Sections 3,11,13,47 and 48 of the NI Act, it
was clear that the trustees were the owners of the property and were bound
to maintain and defend all suits for the preservation of the trust. Thus it
appeared that the “Trust” was not capable of suing and being sued in a
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
 6th May,2022 preliminary round 1(slot1)

Court of law. Therefore, a “Trust” was not a juristic person and was not
like a body corporate, which had a legal existence of its own.
The second issue involved was that the “trust” was an “association of
individuals” or not. For this, the Court placed reliance on Ramanlal Bhailal
Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2008) 5 SCC 449, in which it was held that
an “association of persons/body of individuals” was one in which two or
more persons join in a common purpose and common action to achieve
some common bene t. As per Section 3 of the NI Act, the trustees do not
get bene t out of the trust. Therefore, it could not be said that the trustees
were persons joined together for a common action to achieve some
common bene t. Since, the common purpose of the “Trust” was not to
achieve bene t to the trustees, the “Trust” could not be said to be an
“association of persons/body of individuals”.
In view of the above, it was held that the “Trust” was neither a “body
corporate” nor an “association of individuals” as provided in the
explanation to Section 141 of the NI Act. Therefore, no prosecution against
the petitioners, the trustees, invoking the provisions under Section 141 of
the NI Act could be maintained. Consequently, no successful prosecution
against the petitioners, invoking the provisions of Section 141 of the NI
Act, could be sustained as the petitioners did not sign the cheque involved
in the instant case. The complaint and further proceedings against the
petitioners in the instant case were quashed.[N.M. Nabeesa v. State of
Kerala, 2019 SCC OnLine Ker 2481, decided on 06-02-2019]

M/s. Excellent Testing Equipment & Another v/s V aya Vittala

Charitable & Educational Trust

Judgment Text
Petitioners/Opposite Parties aggrieved by order dated 6.6.2013 passed by
Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (for
short, 'State Commission') have led present revision petition, vide which
their Appeal No.541 of 2013 was dismissed by the State Commission.
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
ij
 6th May,2022 preliminary round 1(slot1)
2. Brief facts are, that Respondent/Complainant an educational and
charitable institution, placed purchase order dt. 29.11.2010 with Petitioners
for supply of 8 lathe machines and paid Rs.14,50,000/- as advance and
balance payable was Rs.5,01,150/-. Petitioner No.2, is the authorized seller
and distributor of Petitioner No.1. The machines in question were installed in
the respondent’s institution on 4.3.2011. Initially, there were certain problems
which petitioner no.2 attended, by changing certain parts. Later on,
respondent came to know that petitioners have supplied Model 'HIMAC-
LX-165' instead of 'HIMAC-LX-175/LX3'. The same was informed to the
petitioners. After due veri cation, petitioners inspected the same and
admitted, that there were certain glitches in the supply, delivery and erection
of the machines and machines ordered by the respondent, were supplied to
another destination. Thereafter, petitioners sent a regret letter dt. 21.12.2011.
Since, petitioners did not set right the wrong committed by them,
respondent got issued legal notice dt. 29.2.2012 calling upon the petitioners
to take back the machines wrongly supplied and to replace the same with
speci ed HIMAC-LX-175/LX3 machines as per purchase order. However,
petitioners did not replace the same. Therefore, respondent led a consumer
complaint.

3. In its written version, petitioners took the plea that respondent is running
an Engineering College and goods purchased are being used for commercial
purpose. Hence, respondent is not a consumer within the purview of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short as, ‘Act’). According to the
petitioners, as per requirements, they booked the materials from its supplier
and supplied all geared lathe machines with standard accessories. The total
amount of all the goods was Rs.19,51,150/- out of which, respondent paid
Rs.14,50,000/- as advance. The balance payable is Rs.5,01,150/-. The said
machines with respondent are in good working condition till today. After
supply of the machines, when petitioners demanded for payment of balance
amount of Rs.5,01,150/-, respondent went on postponing the payment of the
amount, on one pretext or the other. After receipt of machines and using the
same for more than one year, respondent is contending that petitioners have
supplied di erent model machines. Since, respondent is using the same and
has come up with this complaint after a considerable length of time, this act
on the part of respondent is not fair. The respondent has not cleared the
amount due in spite of issuing demand notice. On the other hand,
respondent has led this complaint as a counter case against them.. Denying
all other allegations as false, petitioners prayed for dismissal of the complaint
with exemplary costs.

4. District Consumer Disputes Redrssal Forum, III Additional Bangalore

Urban (for short, ‘District Forum’) allowed the complaint vide its order dated
19.3.2013 and passed the following directions;
fi
ff
fi
fi
fi
 6th May,2022 preliminary round 1(slot1)
'The Opposite Parties 1 and 2 are directed to replace the lathe machines in
question of the model HIMAC-LX-165 with brand new lathe machine of the
model HIMAC-LX-175/LX3, at their own cost, on receipt of balance
consideration of Rs.5,01,150/- from the complainant with fresh warranty from
the date of replacement, the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 are granted 30 days
from the date of this order, for e ecting replacement. If for any reason, the
same could not be replaced within the said time, the Opposite Parties 1 and
2 shall refund to the complainant the cost of lathe machines of the model
HIMAC-LX-175/LX3 at Rs.1,65,000/- each with interest, at 9% p.a. from the
date of default, till actual payment, after giving deduction to the balance
payment of Rs.5,01,150/-.

The Opposite Parties 1 and 2 are also liable to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees ve
thousand) towards cost of this proceedings.'

5. Being aggrieved, petitioners led appeal before the State Commission,

which dismissed the same at admission stage, vide the impugned order.

6. Hence, present petition.

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the
record.

8. The short question which arise for consideration is, whether respondent is
a consumer as per provision of the Act.

9. Admittedly, respondent is a Charitable and Educational Trust. This

Commission in Pratibha Pratisthan Trust Vs. The Allahabad Bank, Juhu, IV
(2007) CPJ 33 NC, observed;

'39. On behalf of the opposite parties, it has been pointed out that the
complaint led by the Trust is not maintainable, and, in any case, the
complaints are not led by all the Trustees.

40. In our view, this submission is required to be accepted because, under

the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, complaint can be led by a consumer.
Under Section 2(1)(d) ‘consumer’ is de ned to mean ‘any person’ who buys
goods or hires or avails of any services for consideration. The word ‘person’
is also de ned under Section 2(1)(m), which includes – (i) a rm, whether
registered or not; (ii) a Hindu Undivided Family; (iii) a Co-operative society;
and (iv) every other association of persons whether registered under the
Societies Registration Act, 1860 or not.

41. Further, in support, the learned counsel for the opp.party Bank has rightly
pointed out an observation from DJ Hayton, Hayton & Marshall Commentary
fi
fi
fi
fi
ff
fi
fi
fi
fi
 6th May,2022 preliminary round 1(slot1)
and Cases on The Law of Trusts and Equitable Remedies, wherein it has
been observed that –

'A trust, unlike a company, has no legal personality; thus, it cannot own
property for entering into contracts, sue or are sued. It is the trustees who
own the trust property, enter into contracts, sued or are sued. A trustee as
such has no distinct legal personality in his representative capacity separate
from himself in his personal capacity.'

42. Considering the aforesaid de nition of the word ‘person’, a public trust is
not ‘person’ which can be considered to be a ‘consumer’ entitled to le
complaint before the consumer forum. The reasons are:

'(i) trust is not included in the de nition of the word ‘person’. The Legislature
included cooperative society under the de nition ‘person’ but not ‘public
trust’;

(ii) secondly, trust is not a legal entity.

43. Hence, the complainant, Pratibha Pratishthan Trust, which is registered

under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, cannot be considered to be
‘person’ which can le a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act,
1986.

44. Further, the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, de nes the trustee as a
person in whom either alone or in association with other persons, the trust
property is vested and includes the Manager.

45. For this, it is to be stated that all the trustees are not made party-
complainants. Though the Opposite Party No.4 was the Chairman of the
Trust, he is not made a party (i.e. one of the Complainants) on the alleged
ground that he had submitted his resignation as a trustee on health grounds.
Rest of the trustees are made as Opposite Parties No.5, 6 and 7 on the
alleged ground that they were not available at the relevant time.

46. Hence, we hold that the complaints led by the Trust are not
maintainable for the reasons that the Trust is not ‘person’ entitled to le
complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986;
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
6th May,2022 preliminary round 1(slot1)
6th May,2022 preliminary round 1(slot1)
6th May,2022 preliminary round 1(slot1)
6th May,2022 preliminary round 1(slot1)