PREETAM SINGH vs ASHOK LEYLAND LTD

THE complainant in this case has prayed for appropriate redressal in respect of alleging deficiency in the goods and also in the service in the matter of purchase of a leylander. Before going into the merits of the claim of the complainant, a preliminary question as to its maintainability was raised by the learned Counsel appearing for the opposite parties. His contention was that the truck having been purchased for commercial purposes, the complainant would not be a consumer as defined in the Act. He has relied on a large number of decisions both by this Commission as well as by the National Commission and also of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in support of his argument.

WE have carefully gone through the complaint petition which merely mentions that the complainant is an unemployed youth and thought of purchasing the truck for self- employment. What is necessary to be borne in mind .is that with relation to purchase of goods, the definition of consumer excludes the purchase of goods for commercial purposes. In the explanation given to the definition section it has been stated that the "Commercial Purpose" does not include use by a consumer of goods bought and used by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood, by means of selfemployment. The complaint petition does not contain any averment that the vehicle in question was purchased by him to be used by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self employment. Their Lordships of the Apex Court of the country in a decision reported in II (1995) CPJ 1 (SC), Laxmi Engineering Works v. P.S.G. Industrial Institute, were of the view that in order to invoke the exception given in the explanation, the goods purchased by the purchaser must be used by himself by employing himself exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood. Their Lordships have clarified the matter further by giving some illustrations. Applying the tests given by their Lordships, the complainant in this case would not come within the exception provided in the explanation to the definition section. It has not been stated anywhere by the complainant that he was plying the vehicle himself and had engaged himself in carrying on the transport business. In the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the view that the vehicle was purchased for commercial purposes and therefore, the complainant does not come within the exception given in the explanation to the definition of "Commercial Purpose". In this view of the matter, the complaint petition is dismissed as not maintainable. Complaint dismissed.