Universities deemed consumers under Consumer Protection Act, complaints upheld.

The Supreme Court dismissed Civil Appeal No. 400 of 2007, upholding the National Commission's decision that the Universities were consumers under the Consumer Protection Act. The Court found no deficiency in services by UTI and concluded that the complaints were maintainable. Civil Appeal Nos. 503 of 2008 and 4664 of 2009 were disposed of accordingly.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in filing Civil Appeal No. 503 of 2008.
2. Entitlement to interest at the rate of 13.5% on the reinvested amount.
3. Whether the complainant-Universities fall within the definition of "consumer" under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act.
4. Deficiency of services by UTI as alleged by the complainant-Universities.
5. Commercial nature of the investment by the Universities.
6. Maintainability of the complaints before the National Commission.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Delay in filing Civil Appeal No. 503 of 2008:
The Supreme Court condoned the delay in filing Civil Appeal No. 503 of 2008.

2. Entitlement to interest at the rate of 13.5% on the reinvested amount:
Punjab University invested Rs. 19 crores in the IISFUS-98 scheme with the understanding that the dividend receivable during the scheme period would be reinvested and refunded with a minimum interest of 13.5% per annum. The dispute arose when the maturity amount received was significantly lower than expected. The University argued that they were assured a minimum return of 13.5% per annum on the reinvested amount, which was not honored by UTI.

3. Whether the complainant-Universities fall within the definition of "consumer" under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act:
The primary question was whether the complainant-Universities could be considered "consumers" under the Act. The Supreme Court referred to the definition of "consumer" under Section 2(1)(d), which includes any person who hires or avails of any services for a consideration but excludes those who avail services for any commercial purpose. The Court determined that the intent of the Universities was not for commercial profit but for the benevolent interest of their employees. Thus, the Universities were considered "consumers" under the Act.

4. Deficiency of services by UTI as alleged by the complainant-Universities:
The Universities alleged that UTI failed to honor the assurance of 13.5% per annum returns and that this amounted to a deficiency of services. The Supreme Court examined the terms of the offer, which specified that the maturity amount would depend on the NAV and was guaranteed not to be below the par value of Rs. 10 per unit. The Court found that the terms were clear and that the reinvested units were subject to market risks. Therefore, there was no deficiency in services by UTI.

5. Commercial nature of the investment by the Universities:
UTI argued that the investments made by the Universities were for commercial purposes, thus excluding them from the definition of "consumer." The Supreme Court referred to the interpretation of "commercial purpose" and concluded that the investments were made for the betterment of the employees and not for commercial profit. The Court held that the investments were not commercial in nature and did not exclude the Universities from being consumers.

6. Maintainability of the complaints before the National Commission:
The Supreme Court upheld the National Commission's decision that the complaints were maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act. The Court agreed that the Universities fell within the definition of "consumer" and that the complaints were valid.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed Civil Appeal No. 400 of 2007 on merits, holding that the National Commission correctly determined that the Universities were consumers under the Act and that there was no deficiency in services by UTI. Civil Appeal Nos. 503 of 2008 and 4664 of 2009 were disposed of in terms of this judgment.

---