A person who purchases several motor cars for commercial use is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Mr. Justice J.B. Garg, President—Haryana Tourism Corporation Ltd. is a State Government Undertaking and it purchased 2 ambassador motor cars (Diesel driven) from M/s. Hindustan Garage, respondent No. 1 manufactured by M/s. Hindustan Motor Ltd., Calcutta on 5.11.1993. It has been alleged that since the motor cars were to be utilised as taxis, he was entitled to refund of Rs. 8,000/- each in case of petrol driven car and Rs. 10,000/- each in the two diesel driven cars as refund of the excise duty. Since the respondents failed to make refund the complaint was instituted. The District Forum-II held that the motor cars were purchased for commercial use, by a Govt. undertaking, engaged in the business and dismissed the complaint on 24.5.1999 on this preliminary issue inasmuch as the complainant was not a consumer and the complaint was not maintainable in the Forum. Aggrieved against it, the present appeal has been attempted by the complainant.

2. The explanation Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is as under :

xxx xxx xxx xxx

“`Commercial purpose’ does not include use by a consumer of goods bought and used by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood, by means of self-employment;”

It is an admitted fact that motor cars were purchased and utilised as tourist taxis i.e. a commercial purpose. If a person purchases one motor car and utilised it as a taxi to earn his livelihood, he may be deemed to be a consumer but not if a Corporation purchases several motor cars and utilised them as taxis for commercial purpose. The learned Counsel for the appellant has referred to M/s. Janta Auto Sales v. Madhavi Investment and Trading Pvt. Ltd., III (1998) CPJ 248=1999 (1) CON.LT 231, wherein it was observed that there is no ban anywhere in the Act which shows that if a person hires or avails the services for construction for commercial purpose, he would not be a consumer within the meaning of the Act. Here, in the case now in hand the facts and circumstances are altogether different in asmuch as it is not under consideration that the services of the motor cars purchased were found defective. Our attention has also been drawn to Mahant Ram & Anr. v. International Tractor and Firm Equipments Ltd., Jabalpur & Anr., 1999 (2) CON.LT 8, where in it was observed that the vehicle might have been purchased for commercial purpose, it is not barred to hold a person as Consumer in case there is violation of terms and conditions of warranty of service. In this case of Himachal Pradesh the purchase related to a ‘Jonga’ and within a week of its purchase it was found that the vehicle had inherent manufacturing defects. In the case now in hand there is no plea of any defect in the motor cars whether petrol driven or diesel driven. In Satish Kumar v. M/s. Master Pipes Stores, Muktser, 1999 (1) CON.LT 579, referred to by the learned Counsel for the appellant wherein it was observed that commercial activities of the dealer were irrelevant. However, the aforesaid case related to purchase of stones for construction of floor mill and cracks appeared in the stones within a month of the purchase. Here also the facts and circumstances are distinguishable, in the case now in hand, purchase of several motor cars for user as taxis is restricting us to hold the complainant to be a consumer. On the contrary in Laxmi Engineering Works v. PSG Industrial Institute, II (1995) CPJ 1 (SC) decided on 4.4.1999 by the Supreme Court, it was observed that if the purchaser himself plies the motor car as a taxi he did not cease to be a consumer. Thus keeping in view the aforesaid decision, the finding of the District Forum that complainant was not a consumer does not call for interference.

3. Before we conclude, here there is another aspect since on behalf of the respondents our attention has been drawn to notification/Section XVII. CH 87-Vehicles and Parts (Page 563) of the Central Excise Department and the relev