M/S. MANIKBAG PVT. LTD. vs RAJARAM MAHADEV NILAJKAR

The complainant claims to have purchased a second hand truck bearing Regn. No.KA-26 A 2095 from the petitioner for a consideration of Rs.3.5 lakhs. The grievance of the complainant is that possession of the truck was not given to him by the petitioner. The complainant, therefore, approached the concerned District Forum by way a consumer complaint, seeking direction to the petitioner to hand over the truck to him or to return the amount of Rs.3,50,000/- along with interest and compensation.

The complaint was resisted by the petitioner on several grounds including that the complainant was not a consumer as defined in section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act.

The District Forum vide its order dated 26.5.2011 ruled in favour of the complainant and directed refund of the amount of Rs.3.5 lakhs along with interest @ 6% p.a., compensation quantified at Rs.2,000/- and the cost of litigation quantified at Rs.1,000/-.

Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the petitioner company approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal having been dismissed, the petitioner is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.

Section 2 (1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act which defines the term consumer, to the extent it is relevant, provides that the said term does not include a person who buys goods or hires or avails services for a commercial purpose. The only exception to the aforesaid definition is a person who uses goods, bought and used by him or the services availed by him, exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment.

In para 1 of the complaint itself, the complainant inter alia stated that he was a businessman having a business of transportation and other business at Belgaum. In his affidavit by way of evidence, he reiterated that he was in need of truck for his business purposes and, therefore, had approached the petitioner company for purchasing the same. It is, therefore, obvious from the complaint and the affidavit filed by the complainant that the truck in question was purchased by him for a commercial purpose. There is no averment in the complaint that the truck was sought to be used by the complainant exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. In the absence of such an averment, the complainant cannot even seek to include his case within the meaning of section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act. In any case, there can be no question of the complainant using the truck in question for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment, when he was already engaged not only in the business of transport but also in other business. Therefore, I have no hesitation in holding that the complainant cannot be said to be a consumer as defined in section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. The District Forum, therefore, did not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The impugned orders are, therefore, set aside and the complaint is consequently dismissed. It is, however, made clear that dismissal of the complaint will not come in the way of the complainant approaching a court or a forum other than a consumer forum for the redressal of his grievances. In the event of the complainant approaching a Civil Court for the redressal of his grievances, he shall be entitled to seek benefit of the provisions contained in Section 14 of the Limitation Act, if such a benefit is otherwise admissible to him by law. The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly.