1. Complaint against dealer for supplying defective and old-model printing machinery — Deficiency in service. (Para 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Telangana) 353
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA, HYDERABAD
Moushumi Bhattacharya, Gadi Praveen Kumar, JJ.
M/s.Monotech Systems Limited Represented by its Managing Director - Petitioner
Versus
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Represented by its President and others - Respondents
Writ Petition No.8285 of 2025
Decided On : 05-05-2026
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Sri K.Pratik Reddy
For the Respondent: Sri K.V.Bhanu Prasad, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Jayanth Naidu and Sri Srinivas Swaroop
For the Petitioner: Sri K.Pratik Reddy
For the Respondent: Sri K.V.Bhanu Prasad, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Jayanth Naidu and Sri Srinivas Swaroop
The burden of proving 'commercial purpose' under the Consumer Protection Act lies with the seller. Use of goods exclusively for earning a livelihood through self-employment does not constitute a commercial purpose. Concurrent findings of fact by consumer commissions are not disturbed in writ jurisdiction unless perverse.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and 2019 - Section 2(1)(d) - Definition of ‘Consumer’ - The term ‘consumer’ excludes persons who obtain goods for ‘commercial purpose’, however, the explanation clarifies that ‘commercial purpose’ does not include use of goods by a person exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment (Paras 34-36) - Whether a transaction constitutes a ‘commercial purpose’ is a question of fact to be decided on the basis of the dominant intention and the purpose to which the goods are put to (Paras 38, 42) - The burden of proving that the purchase falls within the exclusion clause of ‘commercial purpose’ rests upon the opposite party/seller and not upon the consumer-complainant (Paras 40, 45).
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Interference with concurrent findings - A Writ Court does not act as an appellate authority over findings of fact recorded by statutory Tribunals; concurrent findings of fact by the State and National Commissions cannot be interfered with unless they are perverse, based on no evidence, or suffer from jurisdictional error (Paras 51, 52).
(C) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - Independence of proceedings - Pendency of criminal proceedings for dishonour of cheques does not preclude the adjudication of a consumer dispute regarding deficiency in service (Para 50).
Facts of the case:
A proprietary concern purchased a printing machine for livelihood. The purchaser alleged that the machine supplied was an older model and defective. The seller contended that the purchaser was not a ‘consumer’ as the machine was used for commercial purposes and further initiated criminal proceedings for the dishonour of certain cheques. Both the State and National Commissions ruled that the purchaser was a consumer and directed the seller to refund the amount.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the purchaser’s use of the machinery for self-employment to earn a livelihood brought them within the definition of ‘consumer’. The seller failed to discharge the burden of proving that the purchase was for large-scale commercial profit-making. The findings regarding the deficiency in service were based on a preponderance of probabilities and evidence.
Issues: Whether the complainant qualifies as a ‘consumer’ under the Act and whether the concurrent findings of the lower fora warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: The dominant purpose of the transaction is the decisive test for 'commercial purpose'. Where goods are used exclusively for earning a livelihood via self-employment, the exclusion clause does not apply. The burden of proof for such exclusion lies on the seller. In the absence of perversity, concurrent findings of fact by statutory consumer fora are not subject to interference in writ jurisdiction.
Result: W.P.No.8285 of 2025 is dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- consumer protection
- practice and procedure
- criminal law
Table of Contents
2. Dealer argued complainant not a 'consumer' as machinery for commercial purpose; complainant asserted purchase for livelihood via self-employment. (Para 5 , 6 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 )
3. Burden of proving 'commercial purpose' lies on opposite party; failure to rebut complainant's evidence supports deficiency finding. (Para 39 , 40 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 )
4. Purchase of goods used exclusively for self-employment to earn livelihood is not 'commercial purpose' under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. (Para 35 , 37 , 38 , 40 )
5. Writ petition dismissed — concurrent findings of consumer fora upheld; no interference warranted under Article 226. (Para 54 , 55 )
6. What is the test to determine if a purchase is for 'commercial purpose' excluding a buyer from the definition of 'consumer'?
The dominant intention or purpose behind the purchase is decisive; the burden of proving commercial purpose lies on the opposite party, not the complainant. (Para 36 , 39 , 40 , 42 )
7. Does a purchase of goods for self-employment to earn livelihood qualify as a 'commercial purpose' under the Consumer Protection Act?
No. The Explanation to Section 2(1)(d) clarifies that use of goods exclusively for earning livelihood by means of self-employment is not 'commercial purpose'. (Para 35 , 37 , 38 )
8. Can concurrent findings of fact by consumer fora be interfered with in a writ petition under Article 226?
No, unless findings are perverse, based on no evidence, or suffer from a jurisdictional error. (Para 51 , 52 )
9. Does the pendency of proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act bar adjudication of a consumer dispute regarding the same transaction?
No, such proceedings are independent and do not preclude the consumer forum from examining deficiency in service. (Para 10 , 16 , 50 )
ORDER :
Gadi Praveen Kumar, J.
Heard Sri K.Pratik Reddy, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri K.V.Bhanu Prasad, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Jayanth Naidu and Sri Srinivasa Swaroop, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The Writ Petition is filed assailing the orders dated 31.01.2025 passed by the 1st respondent – National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (for short, ‘the National Commission’), in F.A.No.24 of 2023 as well as the order dated 22.11.2022 passed by the 2nd respondent – Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (for short, ‘the State Commission’) in C.C.No.64 of 2016, whereby the claim of the complainant, who is the 3rd respondent herein, is partly allowed. By the said orders, the opposite party No.2, the petitioner herein, was directed to refund a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12.5% per annum from 30.06.2015 and to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- together with costs of Rs.20,000/-. It was further directed that upon such payment, the petitioner shall be entitled to take back the entire machinery from the complainant. It was also stipulated that in the event of non-compliance with the payment of Rs.40,00,000/-, the rate of interest shall stand enhanced to 14% per annum.
3. The facts leading to filing of the complaint before the learned State Commission are that the complainant – M/s.Bhargava Art Printers is a small propriety concern engaged in printing work for earning livelihood through self-employment. The complainant purchased Amsky Auesetter-832 CTCP with G & J-85 Plate Proposer with accessories vide Invoice 20.04.2015, but it was installed only in the month of June, 2015. After installation, the complainant came to know that the machine supplied belonged to the 2014 Model and not the 2015 Model, despite the purchase order having been placed on 12.02.2015. It is the further case of the complainant that instead of supplying brand new one, the petitioner supplied a used and damaged one and after installation, several defects were noticed, including in starting the machine, accompanied by a continuous beeping sound indicating malfunction. It was observed that when a paper role was placed between the machine and the PSB, it caused damage and upon providing support with a paper role, the machine emitted abnormal noise when switched on and that the display panel located at the top right corner of the machine frequently showed error messages, on account of the leakage of air from the compressor.
4. The complainant asserts that in all paid Rs.40,00,000/- and due to pay Rs.3,05,000/- and requested the petitioner to deliver the machine, but the petitioner demanded to issue cheques for the balance amount towards security, thereby the complainant – the 3rd respondent herein executed six blank cheques in the month of February, 2015. However, taking advantage of the blank cheques, the petitioner misused the same and issued legal notice on 16.09.2015, for which, appropriate reply was also issued on 30.09.2015; and that the complainant is ready and willing to pay the balance amount of Rs.3,05,000/- subject to replacement of defective machinery with a new one. However, despite the repeated requests, the petitioner did not turn up to rectify the defects. On the contrary, the petitioner allegedly misused the blank cheques issued by the complainant, and therefore, the 3rdrespondent – complainant approached the learned State Commission for redressal of his grievance. The same was numbered as CC.No.64 of 2016.
5. On the other hand, the opposite party No.1 before the State Commission, who is the 4th respondent herein, raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the complaint both on facts and in law; that the complainant does not fall within the ambit of ‘consumer’ as defined under Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the 1986 Act’), inasmuch as the machinery in question was purchased purely for co
