A person who purchases goods for commercial purposes is not a 'consumer' within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and a claim for compensation for manufacturing defects in such goods is barred by limitation if it has become time-barred under the Limitation Act, 1963, prior to the coming into force of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

S.K.M. Lodha, President—This complaint under Sec. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (“the Act” herein) has been filed on 24.4.89 by the complainant Jaheed Hussain against (1) M/s. Shah and Lohia Auto Pvt. Ltd.; (2) M/s Rajesh Motors, Jaipur, and (3) M/s. Ashok Leyland Limited Co. (opposite parties No. 1, 2 and 3 respectively), for compensation to the tune of Rs. 6,38,944/-. It was alleged by the complainant that he had purchased Ashok Leyland Truck 13-C-42-166 Tusker (Second) on 25.12.82 from opposite-party No. l for Rs. 2,29,740/-. The truck was financed by the State Bank of India, Kota Cantonment. During those days, the complainant was granted the mining lease in respect of mine in Lamba Kho area in 1981. The complainant stood in need of a truck for carrying the stones from the mines site to a place of sale. The authorised dealer of opposite-party No. 3 was opposite-party No. 2. It is said that certain advertisements were issued by it in regard to Ashok Leyland Tusker. It is stated that after the erection of the body, the truck was put on road on 7.3.83. Soon thereafter, there was crack in the chassis in June, 1983. The complainant has alleged that there were various defects in the truck. It is said that the repairs were effected from time to time. We do not consider it necessary to state the details of the repairs. The case of the complainant is that despite repairs, the truck remained out of order and, therefore, the complainant, informed by letter dated 13.9.86 that he is not using the truck. As nothing was done, despite the letter, the truck was surrendered by the complainant on September 30,1986. A surrender certificate has been submitted by the complainant. The complainant has stated that there were manufacturing defects in the truck which could not be rectified by repairs, though an amount ranging from 70 to 80 thousand was spent by him on repairs. The truck could not be used by him. The complainant has claimed a sum of Rs. 6,38,944/- from the opposite-parties, as detailed in para 6 of the complaint The complainant has submitted various documents with the complaint including the manufacturer’s guarantee. Opposite party No. 2 filed preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the complaint on 4.7.89 Thereafter, on behalf of Opposite-parties No. 1 and 2. a detailed version of the case was filed. Opposite-party No. 3 also filed version of the case on 6.7.89. Inspection report of Tusker Mark II Chassis belonging to the complainant dated 31.7.89, prepared in the presence of the parties has also been filed. The complainant has submitted affidavit of himself as well as of Vazir Mohammad. They were cross-examined by the learned counsel for the opposite-parties. On behalf of opposite- party No. 3, affidavit of Jey Gopu was submitted. He was also cross-examined on the affidavit. There was further cross-examination of Vazir Mohd. on 8.1.90. Written submissions were filed on behalf of the opposite-parties, copies whereof were delivered to the learned counsel for the complainant. Oral arguments were heard on 8.1.90. Mr. Ashok Sharma, learned counsel for opposite parties No. 1 and 2 argued that the complainant is not a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of Sec. 2(1)(d)(i) of the Act and, so, he cannot invoke the provisions of the Act. In other words, the complaint is not maintainable. He also raised a contention that the complaint relates to a stale claim and so, it is barred by limitation and as such, it should be dismissed. We propose to examine these points first.

2. The following facts have been stated in the complaint: (1) that the truck purchased by the complainant was financed by the State Bank of India; Kota Cantonment; (2) that the truck was purchased for carrying stones from mines site to the place of sale “....

^^bl [kku ls iRFkj ykdj ;FkkLFkku

(3) that the complainant was deprived of the profit for the period September 30,1986 to the date of the filing of the complaint @ Rs. 300/- per day to the tu