The central legal point established in the judgment is that a self-employed person can qualify as a 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act, entitling them to consumer protection despite using goods for business purposes.

Mr. Justice S.N. Kapoor, Presiding Member—This revision is directed against the order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jharkhand in Appeal No. 344 of 2002 dated 23.10.2002 holding that Smt. Sunita Sharma, the complainant was not a consumer under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act for she purchased a computer for business purposes.

2. The case of the petitioner/complainant was that the complainant purchased a computer for educating her son and daughter after completion of education and using the same for business purposes on 17.1.2001 from U.S. Thakur, the respondent for a sum of Rs. 44,544/-. This price also included a gift of Rs. 12,995/- i.e., free speech 2000 with mike of Philips. U.S. Thakur also arranged finances from Bank of Baroda, Dhanbad, the O.P. No. 3. Accordingly, she paid Rs. 5,000/- on 17.1.2001. A Saving Bank A/c No. 12507 was also opened with O.P. No. 3, the Bank of Baroda, Dhanbad on 23.1.2001 with the margin money of Rs. 9,000/-. The Bank of Baroda on receipt of the quotations sanctioned the loan and paid the same on 25.1.2001 to O.P. No. 1. The computer was installed at the house of the complainant without sending the free gift items as was agreed to by the O.P. No. 1 at the time of negotiations for purchase of the commodity. Besides, he did not issue warranty or guarantee card nor any bill, challan etc. to the complainant. It was alleged that all these documents were submitted to the Bank of Baroda. After installation, the system did not work and the CPU was sent to the O.P. No. 1 and it was received back on 28.2.2001 instead of changing the same with a new one. A complaint was made to the manufacturer/O.P. No. 2. At the behest of O.P. No. 2, the complainant visited the show room with the computer. The entire system was checked by O.P. No. 2. It was found to be defective particularly the mother board and hard-disc. The O.P. No. 2 immediately replaced the hard disc. CPU and mother board on 10.8.2002. The complainant alleged that the quality of computer supplied was defective and the education of the children suffered and complainant was entitled for compensation. There was deficiency in service in not furnishing cash memo and in non-supply of free gifts. Accordingly the complaint was filed.

3. It was contended on behalf of O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 (respondent Nos. 1 and 2) that the CPU has been repaired. Hard disk and mother board were changed. The original bill and cash memo were sent to Bank of the complainant and the duplicate thereof were sent to the complainant for her satisfaction. It was also alleged that the complainant/petitioner had already received speech recognition C.D. on 5th April, 2001 when she purchased the computer for education purposes and not for business purpose and as such she filed a complaint.

4. District Forum, Dhanbad allowed the complaint and directed the O.P. No. 1 to pay a sum of Rs. 23,000/- with 14% interest thereon, compensation of Rs. 5,000/- for mental agony. O.P. No. 2 was separately directed to pay Rs. 3,000/- and the Bank was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation to the complainant.

5. On appeal, the State Commission held that there was no iota of evidence to substantiate that O.P. No. 3, Bank had even colluded with O.P. No. 1 in getting the loan sanctioned in her name. It also held that the appellant was not a ‘consumer’.

6. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

7. In so far as the deficiency in service on the part of the Bank, Bank of Baroda is concerned, we think that we are not supposed to interfere in this finding of fact, particularly, in view of the conduct of the complainant/petitioner in availing the loan facility by opening a Bank account.

8. However, the view taken by the learned State Commission that the petitioner, Mrs. Sunita Sharma was not a ‘consumer’ even in the meaning under Section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, we feel that the view taken by the learned State Commission, Jharkhand was not