RADIANT CABLES LIMITED Vs. HINDUSTAN COPPER LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Complainant is not present and there is no representation on its behalf. We heard the learned Counsel for the opposite parties Mr. Mohan Rao. He submits that the complainant purchased copper wire rods/bars from the 1st opposite party i. e. , Hindustan Copper Limited, for a commercial purpose, namely, manufacturing of copper wires and that, therefore, it does not fall within the definition of consumer under Sec.2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ('the Act' for short ). He relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works V/s. P. S. G. Industrial Institute, 1995 2 CPJ 1. The Supreme Court observed in that case that the expression 'commercial purpose' was not defined in the Act and that in the absence of a definition the ordinary meaning has to be applied. The Supreme Court referred to the various dictionary meanings and held as follows : "the National Commission appears to have been taking a consistent view that where a person purchases goods "with a view to using such goods for carrying on any activity on a large scale for the purpose of earning profit" he will not be a "consumer" within the meaning of Sec.2 (d) (i) of the Act. Broadly affirming the said view and more particularly with a view to obviate any confusion - the expression "large-scale" is not a very precise expression - the Parliament stepped in and added the Explanation to Sec.2 (d) (i) by Ordinance/amendment Act, 1993. . . . . . 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 purposes to which the goods brought are put to. " In Synco Textiles Private Limited V/s. Greaves Cotton and Co. Ltd.,1991 1 CPJ 499, the majority of the National Commission held as follows : "it is thus obvious that Parliament wanted to exclude from the scope of the definition of 'consumer' not merely persons who obtain goods for resale but also those who purchase goods with a view to using such goods for carrying on any activity on a large scale for the purpose of earning profit. On this interpretation of the definition clause, persons buying goods either for resale or for use in large scale profit-making activity will not be 'consumers' entitled to protection under the Act. It seems to us clear that the intention of Parliament as can be gathered from the definition section is to deny the benefits of the Act to persons purchasing goods either for purpose of resale or for the purpose of being used in profit-making activity engaged on a large scale. It would thus follow that cases of purchase of goods for consumption or use in the manufacture of goods or commodities on a large scale with a view to make profit will all fall outside the scope of the definition. It is obvious that Parliament intended to restrict the benefits of the Act to ordinary consumers purchasing goods either for their own consumption or even for use in some small venture which they may have embarked upon in order to make a living as distinct from large scale manufacturing or processing activity carried on for profit. In order that exclusion clause should apply it is however necessary that there should be a close nexus between the transaction of purchase of goods and the large scale activity carried on for earning profit. " That was affirmed by the National Commission in Secretary, Consumer Guidance and Research Society of India V/s. M/s. B. P. L. India Ltd., 1992 1 CPJ 140.

(2.) In the light of these decisions we have to hold that the complainant does not fall within the definition of 'consumer' and, therefore, this C. D. has to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.