PUNJAB UNIVERSITY versus UNIT TRUST OF INDIA & ORS

PUNJAB UNIVERSITY versus UNIT TRUST OF INDIA & ORS

Universities investing for benevolent purposes such as employees' welfare, without any intention of commercial profit, do not fall under 'commercial purpose' and thus fall within the definition of 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. However, the offer terms of the investment scheme guaranteed only that maturity value would not fall below par, subject to market risks, and did not promise specific returns on reinvested dividends, so there was no deficiency of service and the universities' claims were correctly dismissed on merits.

Parties
Appellant: Punjab University; Respondent: Unit Trust of India; Appellant: Punjab Agricultural University
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
09 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Decision on Appeals From National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Outcome
Civil Appeal No.400 of 2007 dismissed; Civil Appeal Nos.503 of 2008 and 4664 of 2009 disposed of in terms of the judgment.
Legal Topics
Definition of Consumer, Commercial Purpose, Deficiency of Service, Maintainability of Complaint, Interpretation of Consumer Protection Act S.2(1)(d)
Consumer Law Definition of Consumer Commercial Purpose Deficiency of Service Maintainability of Complaint Interpretation of Consumer Protection Act S.2(1)(d)

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Punjab University

Appellant

Unit Trust of India

Respondent

Punjab Agricultural University

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Decision on Appeals From National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether universities fall within the definition of 'consumer' under s.2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and whether the services hired by them are for any 'commercial purpose'
  2. 2 Whether there was any deficiency of service by Unit Trust of India as per the offer terms of the investment scheme

Ratio Decidendi

Universities investing for benevolent purposes such as employees' welfare, without any intention of commercial profit, do not fall under 'commercial purpose' and thus fall within the definition of 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. However, the offer terms of the investment scheme guaranteed only that maturity value would not fall below par, subject to market risks, and did not promise specific returns on reinvested dividends, so there was no deficiency of service and the universities' claims were correctly dismissed on merits.

Court Disposition

Civil Appeal No.400 of 2007 dismissed; Civil Appeal Nos.503 of 2008 and 4664 of 2009 disposed of in terms of the judgment.

Orders

  • Complainant-universities fall within the definition of 'consumer' under s.2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
  • Complaints before the National Commission are maintainable.