The central legal point established is that a complainant, operating as a proprietary concern and purchasing goods for commercial purposes, does not qualify as a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act.

ORDER

Thiru J. Jayaram, Judicial Member - This appeal is filed by the opposite parties 1 and 2 against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Salem in C.C. No.1/2011, dated 29.7,2011, allowing the complaint.

2. The case of the complainant is that he availed a loan and purchased a JCB JS-200 Excavator Equipment from the opposite parties on 25.7.2007 for Rs. 42,29,110 for eking out his livelihood by way of self-employment. The complainant repaid a sum of Rs. 13,22,100; but due to some problems there was delay in making the further monthly repayments, and on 20.11.2008 the opposite parties unlawfully seized the complainant's JCB with the help of Goondas without any prior notice to the complainant and repossessed the vehicle. On 11.2.2010, the opposite parties terminated the loan agreement by repossession of the vehicle and said to have sold the vehicle for Rs. 18,50,000 without giving prior notice to the complainant. This amounts to unfair trade practice. Hence the complaint praying for direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 6 lacs towards damages and compensation for mental agony, pain and stress suffered by the complainant, and to refund a sum of Rs. 13,22,100 which was paid by the complainant towards instalments and down payment made and towards costs.

3. According to the opposite parties, the complainant is not at all a consumer as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act and the complainant though availed financial assistance of the opposite parties the complainant has acquired assets for commercial interest and for private use and the asset is being deployed under contracts with 3rd parties, and apart from these, the complainant has some more assets which are similarly deployed for commercial purposes, and admittedly the complainant availed financial assistance to purchase an asset for his business purpose. Under these circumstances, and in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxmi Engineering Works v. PSG Industrial Institute which squarely applies to the instant case before us. The opposite parties have not violated or committed any breach against the terms and conditions in the agreement, and their action of implementing the terms and conditions of the agreement is strictly in accordance with the agreed terms. The complainant has to seek his remedy before a Civil Court if at all he has any complaint against the opposite parties.

4. The District Forum considered the rival contentions and allowed the complaint holding that the complainant is a consumer and that the opposite parties 1and 2 have committed deficiency in service to the complainant, and passed an order directing the opposite parties 1and 2 to pay a sum of Rs. 5 lac as compensation and damages to the complainant for the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and a sum of Rs. 5,000 towards costs.

5. The main contention of the appellants/opposite parties 1and 2 is that the complainant is not a consumer as contemplated under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, and the complainant has availed the services of the opposite parties and purchased the JCB only for commercial purposes and hence the transaction does not come under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, and the complaint is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

6. It is pertinent to note that the complainant has availed financial assistance from the opposite parties and purchased a JCB on hire purchase lease agreement basis. Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act defines a consumer as follows:

"Consumer means, any person

(i) Who buys any goods for a consideration, ....... but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or

(ii) Means a person who hires or avails of the services but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose.

Explanation For the pur