Back
B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, AJITH KUMAR D.
Martin A. J. – Appellant
Versus
Josts Engineering Co. Ltd. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
B. Sudheendra Kumar, President—The appellant is the complainant in C.C.No.306/2011 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (for short ‘the District Commission’), who in this appeal challenges the order passed by the District Commission dismissing the complaint, stating that the complainant is not a consumer coming within the ambit of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short ‘the Act’).
2. The complainant is the Proprietor of M/s Jayem Agencies. The complainant had taken a godown on lease from a private party for the purpose of storing the products of M/s Samsung Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. The complainant is doing the said business for his livelihood by means of self-employment.
3. The 1st opposite party is a leading manufacturer of lift and the 2nd opposite party is the dealer of the 1st opposite party. A lift was purchased from the 2nd opposite party by the complainant. However, the said lift was having some defects. Therefore, the complainant approached the opposite parties for curing the defects. The opposite parties were not prepared to rectify the defects. Because of the defects, the lift was not working p
(1) Livelihood – It was the bounden duty of the opposite parties to establish that the purpose was not for the livelihood of the complainant. (2) Profit generation – It has to be seen whether the dom....
Consumer complaint – Commercial purpose – Mere act of purchasing immovable property, even multiple units, cannot ipso facto attract exclusion clause of Section 2(1)(d) of 1986 Act unless and until it....
Commercial Purpose Exception – The plea that a machine was purchased for “earning livelihood by way of self-employment” is a significant averment that brings a complainant within the ambit of the def....
Money recovery dispute – Consumer complaint not maintainable – Remedy is to file civil suit.
Determination of 'consumer' status hinges on the purpose of purchase, with commercial endeavors not qualifying if purely for self-employment.
Plot Buyers Agreement – Merely labelling brochure as an “investment proposal” or giving buyer option to resell plot does not by itself make the transaction commercial one.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
