SANGEETA RANE Vs. TATA TELCO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the impugned order passed on 6.11.2001 in Complaint Case No.224/2001, the District Forum, Bhopal has refused to entertain the complaint relegating the complainant (appellant herein) to her remedies under the general law, that is by way of civil suit. The complaint was regarding some defects in new Tata Diesel Truck of SFC 709/38 lb model purchased by appellant from respondent No.3, the authorized dealer of Tata Telco, the manufacturer of the said truck represented by respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein. According to the complainant, the truck was purchased for her self-employment and that the truck suffered with a number of defects which could not be removed by the respondents despite the truck being handed over to them in number of times. The complaint was resisted by the respondents on merits as also on the ground that the truck in question was purchased for commercial purpose and as such the dispute between the parties did not fall within the ambit of consumer dispute as provided by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 . The Forum below upheld the objection of the respondents and passed the order which is under challenge in this appeal.

(2.) We have heard Mr. Pankaj Khare, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. G. S. Parmar, learned Counsel for the respondents. It is a case of purchase of goods which according to the complainant suffered with some incurable defects. It was rather a case, asserted the complainant, of fraud being played on her by respondent No.3 in selling some old truck under the garb of new truck. Before this complaint of the appellant could be entertained, she was required to show that she was a consumer as defined under Clause (d) of Sec.2 (1) of the Act. Sub-clause (i) of Clause (d) deals with purchase of goods for consideration by a consumer but excludes a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose. The words "but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose" have been added to the said definition by the amendment of 1993 w. e. f.18.6.1993. However, an explanation has also been added to the said definition which after the amendment of 2002 provides that 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.

(3.) The expression and words "commercial purpose" and "earning his livelihood by means of self-employment" came up for interpretation by the Apex Court in the case of Laxmi Engg. Works V/s. P. S. G. Industrial Institute, 1995 AIR(SC) 1428, and it was held: ". . The explanation reduces the question, what is a 'commercial purpose', to a question of fact to be decided in the facts of each case. It is not the value of the goods that matters but the purpose to which the goods bought are put to. The several words employed in the explanation, viz. , 'uses them by himself', 'exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood' and 'by means of self-employment' make the intention of Parliament abundantly clear, that the goods bought must be used by the buyer himself, by employing himself for earning his livelihood. . " [emphasis supplied]. (p.1432)