PUNJAB AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY LUDIHANA Vs. UTI OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMPLAINANT, Punjab Agriculture University had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties UTI and Anr. Pleadings and evidence in this case are complete. When the case was being finally heard by a Bench of this Commission, the Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties, Mr. Amrendra Sharan, Learned Senior Counsel and Additional Solicitor General, raised the point with regard to the factum whether the complainant shall be covered within the definition of consumer as spelled out in section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986? The Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties cited the following three judgements of this Commission, in support of his above contention:-i) Punjab University vs. Unit Trust of India and Ors. (OP No. 97 / 1994) decided on 17. 10. 06 ii) Sree Anantha Grameena Bank Vs. The Industrial Finance Corporation of India Ltd. IV (2005) CPJ 10 (NC)iii) Delhi Transport Corporation Employees Provident Fund Trust Vs. Orissa Small Industries Ltd. III (2007) CPJ 316 (NC ).

(2.) THE above-cited judgements according to him gave different versions, in the sense, that while the first cited judgement held the complainant to be a consumer, the other two judgements appeared at Sl. No. (ii) and (iii) above, held the complainants in these cases, not to be consumers, in view of which, the Ld. Bench, hearing this instant Complaint referred this matter to the Honble President of the Commission for constituting a larger Bench, to resolve the issue in question in view of differing views of this of this Commission in the above-referred to cases.

(3.) THIS case came up for hearing before a larger Bench on the limited point, whether in the given facts and circumstances of the case the complainant fall with the definition of Consumer as defined in Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or not?