Today is fixed for hearing on the point of admission. Ld. Lawyer for the Complainant is present. Heard the lawyer for the Complainant.  Perused the complaint u/s 35 of the C.P. Act, 2019.

The case of the complainant as stated in the complaint petition is that he is an owner of “BOLERO PIK-UP FB PS 1.3 T”   being Regd. No –WB-71-B-6298. The alleged vehicle was met an accident. The complainant submits the motor accident claim before the insurer. The insurance company repudiates the claim.                                                                       

According to the Annexure-A (Certificate of registration) submitted by the complainant it reflects that the alleged vehicle was registered as “GOODS CARIER” VEHICLE.  So, it is easily presumed that the vehicle was using by the complainant for “COMMERCIAL PURPOSE”. But, in the complainant petition we never find that the complainant was avails such services exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment.

According to the Annexure-G (Repudiation letter from the insurance company) it reflects that the company repudiates the claim on “Driver’s Clause” which was still not settled.

According to the consumer protection act 2019 “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) 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 hires or avails of the ser­ vices 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 but does not in­clude a person who avails of such ser­ vices for any commercial purpose;

Explanation.—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;”

 In the case of Shrikant G. Mantri vs Punjab National Bank on 22 February 2022, the Honorable Supreme Court stated that to come within the ambit of the consumer, a person will have to establish that the services were availed exclusively for earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. A bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai said there cannot be any straitjacket formula and such a question will have to be decided in the facts of each case, depending upon the evidence placed on record. The bench said."When a person avails a service for a commercial purpose, to come within the meaning of 'consumer' as defined in the said Act, he will have to establish that the services were availed exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment," The Consumer Protection Act clearly shows that the legislative intent is to keep the commercial transactions out of the purview of the said Act. It said that at the same time, the intent of the Act is also to give benefit to a person who enters into such commercial transactions, when he uses such goods or avails such services exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment.

 The honorable court observes that “Self-employment” necessarily includes earning for self. Without earning generally there cannot be “self-employment”. Thus, if a person buys and uses the machine exclu­sively for the purposes of earning his liveli­hood by means of “self-employment”, he def­initely comes within the definition of “con­sumer”.

                           Prior to going to the systematic fact of the case we scrutinize the entire documents placed by the complainant along with the complaint petition. On going through the record we find that complainant never mention the word “self- employment” or “earning his self livelihood” in his complaint petition. In the present case, we come to a finding that the relation between the O.P and the complainant is for his business and increases his profits. It cannot be said that the services were availed “exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood” “by means of self­ employment”. It clearly proves that the alleged vehicle was used for commercial purpose. In the present case, admittedly, the complainant is running the business in order to generate profits and therefore, he availed the services of the opposite party for commercial purpose.

Accordingly , the case number 86/2023 is dismissed being not maintainable before this Commission as the complainant is not a consumer of the O.P within the meaning of C.P of the Act 2019.Let the petition of complaint be returned to the complainant along with Annexures and other documents filed by the complainant. — Liberty is granted to complainant to approach Civil Court having jurisdiction for redressal of his grievances.

There shall be no order as to costs. All pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

Let a copy of the order be sent / supplied at free of cost to the parties concerned.

The Final Order will be available in the following website www.confonet.nic.in