Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, AOR Mr. Dhigendra K Sharma, Adv. Mr. Anubhaw Bhandari, Adv. Ms. Niharika Dubey, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. M. R. Shamshad, AOR Mr. Atul Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ankur Sharma, Adv. Mr. Alok Tripathi, AOR

The legal document discusses the interpretation of the term "Commercial Purpose" within the context of the Consumer Protection Act, particularly focusing on whether a purchaser of goods or services qualifies as a "consumer" when the goods are purchased for earning a livelihood through self-employment. The key points are:

1. The definition of "consumer" excludes those who obtain goods or services for resale or for any commercial purpose, unless the commercial use is by the purchaser himself for earning his livelihood by means of self-employment (!) (!) .

2. When a person buys goods for personal use or for self-employment aimed at earning a livelihood, such use does not constitute a "commercial purpose" that would exclude them from the definition of "consumer" (!) (!) .

3. The purpose behind the purchase—whether for personal livelihood or profit-making—is a question of fact that must be determined based on the circumstances of each case (!) .

4. The intention of Parliament was to protect individuals who purchase goods for their own use or self-employment, not for large-scale profit or resale activities (!) (!) .

5. Evidence such as statements made by the purchaser, the nature of the transaction, and the use of the goods are relevant in assessing whether the purpose is for earning livelihood or for commercial profit (!) (!) .

6. In the specific case discussed, the appellants had pleaded that they purchased the commercial space for their self-employment and to run their business, which qualifies them as consumers under the Act. The court found that their intent to use the property for their livelihood was credible and that the earlier statements suggesting profit motive did not negate their claim of being consumers (!) (!) .

7. The case also highlights that in the absence of evidence that the property was ready for occupation or that possession was being delivered, the court may direct refund of the amount paid with interest, especially when the contractual obligations were not fulfilled within the stipulated time (!) (!) .

8. The decision underscores that the determination of whether a purchase is for a commercial purpose is fact-specific, and complaints asserting purchase for earning livelihood should not be dismissed solely on the basis of the nature of the transaction, provided the evidence supports such a claim (!) (!) .

In summary, the legal principle established is that goods purchased for self-employment with the aim of earning a livelihood do not fall outside the scope of "consumer" under the Act, unless the purpose is primarily profit or resale. The purpose and intent at the time of purchase, supported by evidence, are crucial in such determinations.