SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Honble Mr. Justice V. Balakrishna Eradi, President; Smt. A.S. Vijayakar, Member;
Mr. Y. Krishan, Member; Dr. Rais Ahmed, Member
SYNCO TEXTILES PVT. LTD.––Appellant
versus
GREAVES COTTON & COMPANY LTD.––Respondent
First Appeal No.22 of 1989—Decided on 6.4.1990

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Mr. T.R. Bhandari, (In person)
For the Respondent:Mr. B.L. Sharma, Advocate

The expression 'commercial purpose' in Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, excludes only those persons who obtain goods for resale or for use in large-scale profit-making activities.

Headnote:

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 - SECTION 2(1)(D)(I) - COMMERCIAL PURPOSE - INTERPRETATION - GENERATING SETS PURCHASED FOR USE IN OIL MILL - NOT FOR RESALE - HELD: PURCHASE NOT FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSE - APPELLANT IS A 'CONSUMER'.

Fact of the Case:

Appellant, an oil mill operator, purchased three generating sets from the respondent company for use in his factory to generate electricity for operating machinery for commercial production of edible oils. The State Commission dismissed the appellant's complaint seeking recovery of the cost of the generating sets and compensation for losses incurred due to defective sets, holding that the appellant was not a 'consumer' as the purchase was for a 'commercial purpose'.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the appellant was a 'consumer' entitled to protection under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The court interpreted the expression 'commercial purpose' in Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Act as excluding only those persons who obtain goods for resale or for use in large-scale profit-making activities. The court found that the appellant's purchase of the generating sets was not for resale or for use in a large-scale profit-making activity, but rather for use in his small-scale oil mill to generate electricity for commercial production of edible oils.

Issues: Whether the appellant, who purchased generating sets for use in his oil mill, is a 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant was a 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as the purchase of the generating sets was not for resale or for use in a large-scale profit-making activity, but rather for use in his small-scale oil mill to generate electricity for commercial production of edible oils. The court interpreted the expression 'commercial purpose' in Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Act as excluding only those persons who obtain goods for resale or for use in large-scale profit-making activities.

Final Decision: The court set aside the order of the State Commission and remitted the complaint back to the State Commission for adjudication on merits.

ORDER

Mr. Justice V. Balakrishna Eradi, President—This is an appeal filed by the appellant against the Order of the State Commission, Rajasthan dated September 16, 1989 dismissing his complaint-petition on the ground that the appellant is not a 'consumer' within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein after called ‘the Act’) inasmuch as the purchase of the goods in question had been made by him for a 'commercial purpose'.

2. The appellant company operates an oil mill to produce edible oils and oil cake from oil seeds. The plant and machinery in his factory are used for conversion of raw materials into finished goods. On August 19, 1986, the appellant purchased from the respondent company three generating sets for a total cost of Rs. 5,53,000/-. The grievance put forward in the complaint is that the generating sets supplied by the respondent company were found to be defective, in that one of the engines had an undersized crank shaft and the rubber rings (gaskets) used in the three generating sets were of inferior quality, as a consequence of which water had entered into the engines. Since correspondence with the respondent company for replacement of the defective crank shafts and rubber rings/parts etc. did not yield any results, the complainant approached the State Commission with a claim for recovery of Rs. 5,53,000/being the amount paid by way of costs of the three engines, Rs. 10,000/- being the expenditure incurred by the complainant on repairs as well as a further sum of Rs. 4 lakhs being the loss suffered by him as a result of equipment having to be kept idle for about five months.

The State Commission considered at the outset the question whether the appellant is a 'consumer' entitled to seek redressal under the provisions of the Act. It was held by the State Commission that since the purchase of the generating sets by the appellant was for a commercial purpose, namely, for generating electricity in the appellant's factory to be used for operating the machinery in the factory for purpose of commercial production, the appellant cannot be regarded as a 'consumer' as per the definition of the said expression contained in Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Act. The correctness of this conclusion is called in question in this appeal.

In Section 2(1)(d)(i), it is laid down that 'consumer' means-

"any person who buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose."

3. The next part of the definition of the expression 'consumer' contained in Sub-clause (ii) of Section 2(1)(d) is of no relevance in this case as itrelates to cases of hiring of services for consideration.

4. From the definition extracted above, it is clearly seen that in relation to transactions of purchase of goods. Parliament has excluded from the scope of the definition any person who obtains goods for resale or for any commercial purpose. Since cases of resale have been separately referred to, it becomes obvious that the words "for any commercial purpose" are intended to cover cases other than those of resale of the concerned'goods. The words "for any commercial purpose" are wide enough to take in all cases where goods are purchased for being used in any activity directly intended to generate profit. According to the meaning given in standard dictionaries, the expression 'commercial' means-

"connected with, or engaged in commerce; mercantile; having profit as the main aim" (See Collins English Dictionary).

"Pertaining to commerce : mercantile" (See Chamber's Twentieth Century Diction- ary)

The meaning of the expression














































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top