LexPUNJAB UNIVERSITY versus UNIT TRUST OF INDIA & ORS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014) 8 S.C.R. 273 PUNJAB UNIVERSITY V. UNIT TRUST OF INDIA & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 400 of 2007 etc.) JULY 09, 2014 [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD AND PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, JJ.] CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.,11986: A B c s. 2(1) (d) (i) and (ii) -- "Consumer" - "Commercial purpose" -- Universities making investment in "Institutional Investors Special Fund Unit Scheme, 1998" (llSFUS-98) /floated by Unit Trust of India (UT/) - Complaints by : Universities before National Commission that maturity 0 proceeds were far less than that was stipulated 1! Mainta/nability of -- Held: .The term "commercial purpose" must be interpreted considering the facts and circumstances of each case - The words 'commercial purposes' .would cover 'an undertaking the object of which is to make profit out of the E .· undertakings - In the instant case, services of UT/ were availed by complainants for betterment of their employees, and no benefit by way of profit was to accrue to complainants - In view of definition of word 'commerce', under no circumstances, appellants could be said to be indulging in any 'commercial' activity -- Thus complainant-Universities fall within the definition of "consumer" as defined in s.2(1)(d) of F the Act and the complaints are maintainable before National Commission - However, on merits, complainants have no case - It has been clearly stipulated in the. 'terms of offer' that the maturity amount will depend on the. NA V and that the G same was guaranteed not to be below the par value of Rs. 10 per unit - All investments are subject to market risk and fluctuations and investors have to exercise due caution while 273 H 274 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 8 S.C.R. A investing any amount in any Scheme -- Just because the maturity amount is below their expectations they cannot drag the service provider to court for the same - National Commission correctly dismissed the claim of complainants on merits -- Consumer Protection Act, 1987(UK) - S.20(6). B The appellant in C.A. No. 400 of 2007, namely, the Punjab University, made investment in the "Institutional Investors Special Fund Unit Scheme, 1998" (llSFUS-98) floated by the respondent-Unit Trust of India, with a C specific understanding that the dividend receivable during the Scheme period would be reinvested and it would be refunded with a minimum interest@ of 13.5% per annum. The investment was made out of the funds "Foundation for Higher Education & Research". UTI issued two llSFUS-98 certificates for 1,90,00,000 units and D 45,00,000 units worth Rs. 19 crores and Rs. 4.5 crores, respectively, with each unit having a face value of Rs. 101 -. When the cheques of the maturity amounts were received by the appellant, it found the same far less than the maturity proceeds. The appellant-University filed a E. complaint before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission contending that the respondent had assured that the dividend income would be reinvested in further units at Net Asset Value (NAV) and on those units the University was assured that they F would get a minimum return@ 13.5% per annum and that it would be repurchased at par i.e. @ Rs. 101-. The National Commission held the complaint of the University as maintainable under the Act for deficiency of service by the respondent-Institution, but dismissed the same. G Aggrieved, the Punjab University as well as UTI filed appeals. The other appeal was filed in the similar circumstances by the Punjab Agricultural University. In the instant appeals, it was contended for the UTI that the appellant-Universities did not fall und~r the term H PUNJAB UNIVERSITY v. UNIT TRUST OF INDIA & 275 ORS. "consumer" as defined uls 2(1 )(d) of the Consumer A Protection Act, 1986 and the respondent-UT! was not providing any "services" as defined uls 2(1)(e) of the Act. It was submitted that the services of participating in the Schemes of the UTI were for commercial purpose if the same were not availed by any person exclusively for the B purposes· of earning his livelihood by means of self- employment. The questions for consideration before the Court were: "whether the complainant-Universities fall within the ambit of the definition of "consumer" as laid down in · C Section 2(1)(d) of the Act and that the "services" hired by them are not for any "commercial purpose"; and "whether in terms of the offer, is there any deficiency of services". Dispos
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.