BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

 Complaint No.195 of 2023

      Date of Instt. 24.05.2023

      Date of Decision: 14.07.2023

M/s Bhagwati Rubber Industry, Plot 1-2, Dhadda Industrial Complex, Kangniwal, Old Hoshiarpur Road, Distt. Jalandhar through its Prop. Sh. Sham Lal Chadha.

..........Complainant

Versus

M/s Isotex Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Unit-II, D/2/E-76, GIDC Industrial Estate, Vagara, Dahej, Mg. Director/Director.

….….. Opposite Party

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:         Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj            (President)

 Smt. Jyotsna                           (Member)

 Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon      (Member)                      

Present:        None for the Complainant.

Order

Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)

1.                The complainant has filed the present complaint that he is doing the business of Plywood and he has purchased the boiler from the OP for use in his business and to earn livelihood. He submitted order to the OP to supply 12.5KG boiler and issued a cheque amounting to Rs.5,00,000/-, but the OP lingered on the matter despite after taking the amount of Rs.2,52,616/- out of Rs.25,96,000/- and did not provide him the boiler. He has produced on record the bills. As per the provision of Section-2(1)(d) in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which reads as under:-

(d) “Consumer” means any person who,—

(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or

(ii) ¹² [hires or avails of] any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who ¹² [hires or avails of] the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person ¹³ [but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose];

                   Now the point in controversy is as to whether the complainant is a consumer as per Section-2(1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act and he is running the business for self employment. He is proprietor of the Firm M/s Bhagwati Rubber Industry. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2019 (III), case titled as ‘Sunil Kohli & Anr. Vs. M/s Purearth Infrastructure Ltd.’ that ‘Purchase of goods for commercial purpose- If commercial use is by purchaser himself for purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self employment, such purchaser of goods is yet a ‘consumer’-What is ‘commercial purpose’ is a question of fact to be decided in facts of each case. It has been clarified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Cheema Engineering Services that ‘Self-employment connotes altogether a different concept, namely, he alone uses the machinery purchased for the purpose of manufacture by employing himself in working out or producing the goods for earning his livelihood. 'He' includes the members of his family.’

                   In the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court 2020(2), titled as ‘M/s Nandan Biomatrix Ltd. Vs. S. Ambika Devi & Ors.’ also clarifies that a person buying goods and using them himself exclusively for the purpose of earning a livelihood by means of self employment would be covered by the definition of a consumer.

                   In the present case, the complainant has produced on record the documents, wherein it has been proved that he is running the business under the name and style M/s Bhagwati Rubber Industries being proprietor, but it has nowhere been mentioned that he is running his business for livelihood by means of self employment. The documents produced on record by the complainant prima-facie shows that he is not running the business for self employment, therefore, from the documents itself, it is prima-facie proved that the business is being run for the commercial purposes, so he is not a consumer and thus, the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable and the same is disposed of. Copy of the order be supplied to the complainant free of cost, as per Rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated           Jaswant Singh Dhillon   Jyotsna     Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj     

14.07.2023         Member                             Member          President