ORDER

B.K. Taimni, Member - Complainant, Punjab Agriculture University had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties UTI and another Pleadings and evidence in this case are complete. When the case was being finally heard by a Bench of this Commission, the learned Counsel for the opposite parties, Mr. Amrendra Sharan, learned Senior Counsel and Additional Solicitor General, raised the point with regard to the factum whether the complainant shall be covered within the definition of consumer as spelt out in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 The learned Counsel for the opposite parties cited the following three judgments of this Commission, in support of his above contention:

(i) Punjab University v. Unit Trust of India and Ors., (OP No. 97/1994), decided on 17.10.2006.

(ii) Sree Anantha Grameena Bank v. The Industrial Finance Corporation of India Ltd., (2005) 4 CPJ 10 (NC).

(iii) Delhi Transport Corporation Employees Provident Fund Trust v. Orissa Small Industries Ltd., (2007) 3 CPJ 316 (NC).

2. The above-cited judgments, according to him, gave different versions, in the sense, that while the first cited judgment held the complainant to be a consumer, the other two judgments appeared at Sl. Nos. (ii) and (iii) above, held the complainants in these cases, not to be consumers , in view of which, the learned Bench, hearing this instant Complaint referred this matter to the Hon'ble President of the Commission for constituting a Larger Bench, to resolve the issue in question in view of differing views of this Commission in the above-referred two cases.

3. This case came up for hearing before a Larger Bench on the limited point, whether in the given facts and circumstances of the case the complainant falls within the definition of Consumer as defined in Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or not

4. We heard the learned Counsel for the parties at considerable length and have gone through the extensive material filed by both the parties by way of written submissions.

5. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the complainant that this Commission was correct in holding them to be a consumer in OP No. 97/2004 decided by this Commission on 17.10.2006, between the same parties. According to him, the other two judgments cited by the opposite parties and referred to in the reference order of this Commission have no bearing on the issue in question, as the facts and circumstances of the case are entirely different. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the opposite parties wishes to rely upon explanation added after the amendment on 15.3.2003 to Section 2(i)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which reads as under:

"hires [or avails of] any services 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 beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires [or avails of] the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person [but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose];

Explanation For the purpose of Sub-clause (i), commercial purpose does not include use by a consumer of goods, bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood, by means of self-employment."

(Emphasis supplied .added by way of amendment to the Act effective 15.3.2003)

6. According to him, the complainants invested money knowing fully well that the opposite party will invest them in equities/shares and this was done to earn profit by the complainant. This investment could not be said to be for 'self-employment or for earning his livelihood , as per law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxmi Engineering Works v. P.S.G. Industrial Institute, (1995) 3 SCC