The purchase of a tractor for agricultural purposes is not a "commercial purpose" under Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Mr. Justice S.S. Sandhawalia, President — Whether ‘commercial purpose’ is a thing apart and distinct from ‘agricultural purpose’, is the threshold core question in this complaint.

2. For the limited purpose of disposing of the preliminary jurisdictional objection, it is unnecessary to delve into the facts and merits deeply. It suffices to mention that the primal grievance of the complainant is with regard to the defective supply of an Escort-335 tractor on the 8th of July, 1991. It is the case that the said tractor from its very inception and subsequently suffered from manufacturing and mechanical defects which rendered it a non- standard and non-working machinery. In the reply filed by the opposite party No. 2, the threshold preliminary objection is in the following terms:—

“that the present complaint is not maintainable in view of Section 2(1)(d)(i) as the tractor was purchased for commercial purpose.”

To the same tenor is the stand taken by opposite party No. 1.

3. In the replication filed by the complainant, the preliminary objection has been controverted in the following terms: —

“The complainant has never used the tractor for commercial purpose. The tractor has been used and is being used for agricultural operation. The family of the complainant has a holding of 12 acres in village Sheonkra (Tarawari) in District Karnal and the tractor is being used for agricultural operation for self- employment.”

4. Mr. P.S. Chohan, the learned Counsel for the opposite parties has stuck to his guns on the point of the preliminary objection. It was contended that the very fact of the purchase of an equipment like an expensive tractor and the admitted holding of about 12 acres by the complainant would render the purchase thereof as one for a commercial purpose. The submission was that the complainant could not possibly be carrying on the agricultural operation for his mere subsistence but also would be marketing at least some part of his produce. On this premise, the stand is that the complainant is not a consumer because such an agricultural purpose is synonymous with a commercial one.

5. There is no manner of doubt that the issue raised herein has national remifications within the consumer jurisdiction. In sum, the question is whether the vast arena of agricultural purposes (and admittedly in a primarily agricultural country like ours) is outside the pale of the beneficient Consumer Protection Act. This issue therefore, deserves examination in some depth and even at the cost of some prolixity. More so because of some recent serious conflict of views and precedent thereon already.

6. Before entering the thicket of the case law it is indeed necessary and refreshing to examine the question on the language of the statute and upon larger principle. Inevitably one must first advert to the relevant part of the definition of a consumer of goods around which the controversy revolves:

“2(1)(d)(i) “Consumer means any person who, buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or 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: or"

7. It seems somewhat elementary that in the particular context of goods obtained for an agricultural purpose, the question of its immediate or approximate re-sale would hardly if ever arises at all. In the light of the underlined words in the definition one has to first recall the authoritative case of I (1991) CPJ 499 (NC), Synco Textiles Pvt. Ltd. v. Greaves Cotton & Company Ltd. Therein, it was pointedly observed by V. Balakrishna Eradi, J. that since re-sale of the goods has been separately and specifically mentioned in the earlier part of the definiti