M/sJai Industry Vs. AutoTurners

Present:       Sh.Harsh Dev Shastri&Sh.Piyush Sharma Advocates for

                   complainant.

                   Remaining arguments on the point of maintainability is heard. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has contended that the machine was purchased by the complainant for the purpose of self employment and no commercial purpose is involved in the present case. Hence this Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the present case. Ld. Counsel has also placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal Nos.6301 of 2024 titled as Shriram Chits(India) Private Limited Earlier Known as Shriram Chits(K) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Raghachand Associates.

                   We have perused the above cited judgment, in which Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the question of inquiring into the third part(whether the goods were purchased for  earning his livelihood, by means of self-employment) will only arise if the service provider succeeds in discharging its onus and proving that the service obtained was for a commercial purpose. Unless the service provider discharges its onus, the onus does not shift back to the complainant to show that the service obtained was exclusively for earning its livelihood through the means of self employment.”  In this case, the service provider was a registered Chit Fund company engaged in Chit business and the complainant had subscribed to certain chits in the said business. But in the present case the complainant in para no.1 of its complaint has itself submitted that complainant no.2 is the proprietor at complainant no.1 and is running a manufacturing plant of nuts and bolts.  The machine in question was purchased by the complainants for production of nuts and bolts. Hence it is not proved that the complainant purchased the alleged machinery for earning his livelihood. It was not being used for a small shop rather it was used for a large scale manufacturing of nuts and bolts. Hence the law cited above ShriramChits(Supra) is not fully applicable on the facts and circumstance of the present case. On the other hand, in Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. PSG Industrial Institute(1995)3SCC583Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that a person purchasing goods to conduct any large-scale activity with the intent of extracting profit would not be categorized as a “consumer” under the Act. This law is fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case.

                   From the pleadings of the complainant it is itself proved that the machinery was purchased for commercial purpose. As such the present complaint is not maintainable before this Commission and the same stands dismissed with no order as to costs.

                   Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Member                                   Member                          President/02.09.2024