JAGRUT NAGRIK vs Cargo Motors Pvt Ltd

THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad (in short, "the State Commission") dated 15.11.2011 in first appeal No.663/2010 whereby the State Commission allowed the appeal of the respondents and dismissed consumer the complaint filed by the petitioners.

SHORN off unnecessary details, the facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that the petitioners filed a consumer complaint against the respondents/opposite parties alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in respect of a truck manufactured by respondent No.2 purchased by the complainant from respondent No.1. The complaint was resisted by the respondents/opposite parties by filing the written version.

THE District forum, Vadodara on consideration of pleadings of the parties and the evidence, partly allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties as under: - " The complaint is partly allowed. The opponents are directed to pay Rs.5,18,277.66 Paisa (rupees five lacs eighteen thousand two hundred seventy seven and sixty paisa only) with 9% interest from 5.1.2009 till realization. The opponents are also directed to pay Rs.7,094.00 (rupees two lacs forty four thousand only) being the compensation for business loss, mental agony and harassment and inconvenience etc. and a sum of Rs.5,000.00 (rupees five thousand only) for the cost of these proceedings. This award be complied with within one month from the date of receipt of copy thereof."

Being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum the respondents approached the State Commission, Gujarat in appeal and the State Commission on consideration of records and the contentions of the parties allowed the appeal and dismissed the complaint mainly on the ground that the complainant No.2 was not a consumer as envisaged under Section 2 (1) (d) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 because he had purchased the truck chassis for commercial purpose.

BEING aggrieved of the order of the State Commission the petitioners have preferred this revision petition. It is contended by Shri P.V. Moorjani, Authorised Representative of the petitioners that the State Commission has committed a jurisdictional error in dismissing the complaint in total disregard of the explanation to Section 2 (1) (d) which provides that for the purpose of the definition given in the Act, the commercial purpose does not include use by a person of goods bought exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self -employment. Shri P.V. Moorjani has contended that the State Commission while holding that the complainant No.2 is not a consumer, has failed to appreciate that complainant No.2in para -2 of the complaint has taken a specific plea that he has purchased the subject truck chassis from respondent No.1 for the purpose of earning his livelihood.

LEARNED counsel for the respondent on the contrary has argued in support of the impugned order.

THE short point for consideration in this revision petition is whether or not the petitioner No.2 falls within the ambit of the definition of "Consumer" as provided under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In order to find answer to the above question, it is necessary to have a look on the relevant definition of consumer which reads as under: - "(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.

ON reading of the above, it is clear that vis a vis the purchase of goods the consumer is a person who purchases goods for consideration but does not include the person who buys the goods for commercial purpose. The explanation to the section carves out an exception by providing that if the goods are purchased for earning livelihood by way of self -employment, it shall not be treated as the commercial purpose. In order to find whether the complainant No.2 is entitled to the benefit of explanation to Section 2 (1) (d), it is necessary to have a look on the pleadings. In para -2 of the complaint, complainant No.2 has alleged that he purchased the truck chassis for the purpose of earning his livelihood. This allegation in para No.2 is belied by the subsequent allegation in para No.7 which reads as under: - "I, Applicant No.2, state before the Hon. Forum that we are doing the business in the name of Pavan Transport and Bharmal Construction. Before taking the truck from the opponents on 30.12.08 we obtained orders of Rs.4,80,000/ - List -11) from R.N. Shah Associates and Rs.6,41,789 from Rahin Engineering Pvt. Ltd. On 5.1.2009 (List -12) and by promoting there from we decided to purchase the vehicle as detailed above and it was possible through bank loan."

ON reading of the above, it is clear that at the time of purchase of the truck chassis, complainant No.2 was already in transport business which was being run under the name and style of Pavan Transport and Bharmal Construction and in furtherance of said business even before purchase of truck chassis the complainant No.2 had obtained transport orders for Rs.4,80,000/ - from R.N. Shah Associates and Rs.6,41,789/ - from Rahin Engineering Pvt. Ltd. From this admission it is evident that the truck chassis in question was purchased by the complainant No.2 to expand the existing transport business. Thus, it cannot be said that the truck chassis was purchased exclusively for the purpose of earning livelihood by way of self -employment. Thus, explanation to Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act is of no avail to the petitioner.

IN view of the above, I do not find infirmity in the impugned order of the State Commission, which may call for interference in exercise of the limited revisoinal jurisdiction flowing from Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Revision petition is accordingly dismissed.