Kush Precision Moulds vs Dmg Mori Seiki India Machines And Services Pvt Ltd

M /s Kush Precision Moulds is engaged in the business of manufacturing moulds. The complainant has filed the instant complaint alleging that opposite party has committed unfair trade practice by supplying him a defective "CNC Vertical Milling Machining Centre DMC 635V Eco, of ECOLINE" series, which started giving troubles since very beginning.

UNDISPUTEDLY , the complainant had purchased the said machine in connection with his business for commercial purpose, therefore, the question arises whether the complainant is a ''consumer'' and has locus standi to file a consumer complaint?

LEARNED counsel for the complainant has drawn our attention to Section 2 (1) (d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ( in short, the Act) and submitted that as per the aforesaid definition, consumer means a person who buys any goods for consideration. It is argued that in the instant case, the machine was purchased by the complainant for consideration and it was defective since very beginning, as such, the consumer complainant is maintainable. We do not find merit in the above contention. Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act defines the term ''consumer'' and it reads as under: 2. (1) 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 purpose] ;

{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 a consumer is a person who buys any goods or hires or avails of services for consideration but does not include a person who buys goods or hires or avails of such services for any commercial purpose.

EXPLANATION to Section 2 (1) (d) gives a restricted meaning to the term ''commercial purpose'' by providing that commercial purpose does not include use by a person of goods bought or services availed by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self employment. Thus, it is clear that in order to avail of the benefit of the Explanation, the complainant has to show that the alleged services of the opposite party were availed by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self employment.

ON bare reading of the complaint, it is obvious that complainant is engaged in the business of manufacturing of moulds and the subject machine was purchased in connection with that business. Therefore, in view of the exception carved out in Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act, machine having been purchased for commercial purpose, the complainant cannot be termed a "consumer" as envisaged under section 2 (1) (d) of the Act. There is nothing in the complaint to suggest that the complainant is covered within the explanation to Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act which gives restricted meaning to the term ''commercial purpose''. On the contrary, complainant has sought damage for the loss in business, which clearly shows that the machine was purchased for promoting the business of the complainant.

THUS , in our view, complainant is not a consumer within the definition as envisaged under section 2 (1) (d) of the Act. As such he has no locus standi to maintain the consumer complaint. Complaint, is, therefore, rejected. It is clarified that this order will not come in the way of the complainant to avail of his remedy before appropriate forum.