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

HARYANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President and Shri Balbir Singh, Judicial Member
RAM BILASH SINGH - Appellant
Versus
MARKETING COMMITTEE BARWALA - Respondent
First Appeal No. 419 of 2017
Decided on : 04-09-2017

Advocates Appeared:
Shri Sant Lal Barwala, Advocate, for the Appellants; Shri Sikander Bakshi, Advocate, for the Respondents

The central legal point established in the judgment is that purchasing goods for earning livelihood through self-employment does not exclude a person from the definition of 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Headnote:

Consumer - Definition of Consumer under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(i)(d) - Summary of Acts and Sections: Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(i)(d) - The judgment discusses the definition of 'consumer' under Section 2(i)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the interpretation of 'commercial purpose' as it relates to the purchase of goods for earning livelihood through self-employment. The court refers to relevant case laws and emphasizes that purchasing goods for earning livelihood by means of self-employment does not exclude a person from the definition of 'consumer' under the Act.

Fact of the Case:

The complainants purchased a plot in an open auction for commercial purpose and sought relief under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The District Forum dismissed the complaint on the ground that the complainants were not 'consumers' as the plot was purchased for commercial purpose.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that purchasing a plot in an open auction for earning livelihood through self-employment does not automatically exclude the complainants from the definition of 'consumer' under the Act. The court set aside the impugned order and remitted the case to the District Forum for fresh consideration.

Issues: The main issue was whether the complainants fell within the definition of 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the exclusion of 'commercial purpose' under the Act does not apply to activities undertaken exclusively for earning livelihood through self-employment. The court also referred to relevant case laws to support its decision.

Final Decision: The appeal was accepted, the impugned order was set aside, and the case was remitted to the District Forum for fresh consideration.

ORDER

Nawab Singh, President (Oral) - This complainant's (Ram Bilash Singh and Om Parkash) appeal is directed against the order dated February 27th, 2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hisar (for short District Forum) whereby complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short 'the Act') was dismissed holding that complainants were not 'consumers' and as such, the Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

2. The complainants purchased Plot No. 37 in Cotton Market, Barwala in an open auction on September 12th, 2008 conducted by Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board-opposite party (for short 'Board'), Panchkula. The complainant constructed the shop on the aforesaid plot. The Board did not issue licence to the complainant to start the business of sale and purchase of cotton. The complainant was not liable to pay any penal interest and penalty in respect of the shop in question to the Board. The Board sent a notice dated July 26th, 2013 to the complainant to pay the penal interest on the remaining instalments and to complete the construction on the plot on or before March 31st, 2014 otherwise the plot would be deemed to have been resumed. By filing the complaint, she prayed that the opposite parties be restrained from recovering any interest, penal interest and non construction fee (Extension Fee) and to refund the amount of interest and penal interest paid to the opposite parties along with interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of deposit till realization.

3. The District Forum dismissed the complaint as stated above on the ground that the complainants were not 'consumer' because the shop was purchased in an open auction for commercial purpose.

4. After perusing the complaint and the impugned order question arises as to whether complainants fall under the definition of 'consumer' or not as defined in the Act

5. Section 2 (i)(d) of the Act defines 'consumer'.

(d) "consumer" means any person who- (i) 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; or

(ii) 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 purposes;

Explanation.- For the purposes of this clause, "commercial purpose" does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment;"

6. A bare perusal of the provisions of Section 2(i)(d) reveals that for the purposes of this Act a "Consumer" means : (i) a person who buys any goods for consideration; it is immaterial whether the consideration is paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or whether the payment of consideration is deferred; (ii) a person who uses such goods with the approval of the person who buys such goods for consideration (iii) but does not include a person who buys such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose.

7. The expression "commercial purpose" is not defined in the Act as such. In common parlance, the term 'commercial' indicates that when the goods are bought by a person not for his direct

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