Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – ‘Commercial purpose’ – Not defined in the Act – The Explanation (added by Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act 50 of 1993:
Held: The expression ‘commercial purpose’ has not been defined under the Act – In the absence thereof one have to go by its ordinary meaning – ‘Commercial’ denotes “pertaining to commerce”; it means ‘connected’ with or engaged in commerce; mercantile; “having profit as the main aim”; relate to or is connected with trade and traffic or commerce in general, is occupied with business and commerce – The Explanation (added by Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act 50 of 1993 (replacing Ordinance of
24 of 1993 w.e.f. 18.06.1993) excludes certain purposes from the purview of the expression ‘commercial purpose’ – The Explanation clarifies that even purchases in certain situations for ‘commercial purposes’ would not take within its sweep the purchaser out of the definition of expression ‘consumer’ – In other words, if the commercial use is by the purchaser himself for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment, such purchaser of goods would continue to be a ‘consumer’. [Para 12] Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – “Commercial purpose” – To ascertain purchase for “commercial purpose” or not – Assertion made in the complaint important – Evidence tendered had to be evaluated – No straight jacket formula can be adopted:
Held: If the commercial use is by the purchaser himself for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment, such purchaser of goods would continue to be a ‘consumer’ – When there is an assertion in the complaint filed before the Consumer Court or Commission that such goods are purchased for earning livelihood, such complaint cannot be nipped at the bud and dismissed – Evidence tendered by parties will have to be evaluated on the basis of pleadings and thereafter conclusion be arrived at – There cannot be any defined formula with mathematical precision to examine the claims for non-suiting the complainant on account of such complaint not falling within the definition of the expression ‘consumer’ as defined u/s. 2(1)(d). [Para 12]
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – “Consumer” – Exclusion of persons buying goods either for resale or for use in large scale profit making activity from the definition of consumer – Intention of Parliament:
Held: The Parliament has excluded from the scope of ‘Consumer’ for igniting proceedings under the Act, a person who obtains goods or services for re-sale or for any commercial purpose – Going by the plain dictionary meaning of the words used in the definition section the intention of Parliament must be understood to be to exclude from the scope of the expression “consumer” any person who buys goods for the purpose of their being used in any activity engaged on a large scale for the purpose of making profit – The words ‘for any commercial purpose’ must be understood as covering the cases other than those of resale of the goods – Thus, it is obvious, that Parliament intended to exclude from the scope of definition not merely persons who obtain goods for resale but also those who purchase goods with a view to using such goods for carrying on any activity on a large scale for the purpose of earning profit – Thus, persons buying goods either for resale or for use in large scale profit making activity will not be a consumer entitled to protection under the Act, which would be a plain interpretation of this definition clause. [Para 11]
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – The NCDRC held that
commercial space booked by the complainants cannot be said to be for the purposes of earning livelihood by self-employment or in other words the appellants are not consumers as defined u/s. 2(1)(d) of the Act – Propriety:
Held: A perusal of the complaint filed before the Commission would indicate that appellants have specifically pleaded that they were in search of office space “for their self-employment and to run their business and earn their livelihood” – In the statement recorded on oath by the Commission, while hearing the maintainability of the complaint, the first appellant has stated that he was earlier engaged in the business of caustic soda as a dealer of M/s.‘R’ Industries and presently engaged in the business of investment/dealing in property – He has nowhere stated that he had proposed to purchase the office space from the respondent for the purpose of either selling the same for higher price or the said property was being purchased as an investment for being sold in future – The statement of the appellant was that he engaged in the business of investment/dealing in property would not ipso facto suggest or indicate the property proposed to be purchased from the respondent was for commercial purpose – It is not in dispute that in all the respondent has received a sum of Rs.51,10,117/- from appellants – To balance the equities, respondent directed to refund the amount it has received from appellants with interest calculated @ 12% per annum – Therefore, the order dated 11.05.2015 passed by the NCDRC in consumer complaint set aside. [Paras 13, 16 and 17]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Synco Textiles Pvt. Ltd. vs. Greaves Cotton and Company Ltd., 1990 SCC Online NCDRC 3 : (1991) 1 CPJ 499; Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust v. Unique Shanti Developers and others, (2020) 2 SCC 265 : [2019]
14 SCR 563; Laxmi Engineering Works v. P.S.G. Industrial Institute, (1995)
3 SCC 583 : [1995] 3 SCR 174 – referred to.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.