CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110016
CASE No. 178/2023
HUMAN CARE PATH LAB,
THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR,
MR. ABDUL RAHIM SHARFUDDIN,
OFFICE AT: J-17, BASEMENT, MALIK PLAZA,
NEAR NOOR MASJID, THOKAR NO. 5,
AFE, KALINDI KUNJ ROAD,
NEW DELHI - 110025 …..COMPLAINANT
Vs.
- M/S MERIL DIAGNOSTICS PRIVATE LIMITED.
THROUGH ITS DIRECTORS,
- MR. PRAMOD KUMAR MINOCHA, (DIRECTOR)
- MR. RAJNIKANT GANDALAL VYAS, (DIRECTOR)
ALL AT REG. OFFICE: SURVEY NO. 135/139,
BILAKHIA HOUSE, MUKTANAND MARG,
CHALA, VAPI- 396191, GUJARAT INDIA.
- MR. MADHUKAR SINGH PARMAR (AREA MANAGER)
OFFICE AT: SURVEY NO. 111,112,114/P,
105/1,2,3,4/P1, BLOCK NO. MD1,
MERIL ACADEMY, MUKTANAND MARG,
BALITHA, VAPI- 396191,
24- GUJARAT, INDIA …..RESPONDENTS
Date of Institution-30.05.2023
Date of Order-16.02.2024
O R D E R
MONIKA SRIVASTAVA– President
The Complainant is the proprietor of Human Care Pathlabs which had purchased medical equipment from the OP. The complainant has filed a complaint against the OP for faulty machine provided to him.
The preliminary issue for consideration before the complaint could be taken on merits is whether the complainant is a consumer or has the machine been purchased for commercial purpose.
Section 2(7) of The Consumer Protection Act 2019 defines
“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 service 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 service other than the person who 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, but does not include a person who avails of such service for any commercial purpose.
Explanation—For the purposes of this clause,— (a) the expression “commercial purpose” does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood, by means of self-employment (b) the expressions “buys any goods” and “hires or avails any services” includes offline or online transactions through electronic means or by teleshopping or direct selling or multi-level marketing
As per the explanation appended to the Section it is clarified that a person buying goods for commercial purpose is not included in definition of Consumer meaning any person buying the goods for reselling or making profits is not a consumer.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court In Laxmi Engineering Works vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute AIR 1995 SC 1428 has held that the word ‘commercial’ is connected with or engaged in commerce having profit as the main aim. Any person buying goods for purpose of being used in any activity on a large scale for making profit is not a ‘consumer’.
Subsequently, the Hon’ble SC in Kalpavruksha Charitable Trust vs. Toshniwal Brothers AIR 1999 SC 3356 held that a charitable trust is not a consumer if it has purchased machinery for its diagnostic centre, when only 10% patients are provided free service and charges are levied on remaining patients. Thus, the use is for ‘commercial purpose’ and hence it is not a ‘consumer’.
The Hon’ble NCDRC in Kores (India) Ltd. vs. Samir Purkayastha (1996) 4 CTJ 579 held that if intention is to earn substantial profit and not mere earning livelihood, the purchase will be for commercial purpose.
Further, in Sakthi Engineering Works vs. Sri Krishna Coir Rope Industry III(2000) CPJ 13, the Hon’ble NCDRC has held that purchase of machine when buyer did not have technical knowledge and where ten people were required to operate machine, is purchased for ‘commercial purpose’.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Cheema Engg Services vs. Rajan Singh (1997) 1 SCC 131 held that ‘self-employment’ means the person or his family alone should use the machinery. Burden is on him to prove the same.
The complainant in this case is not a doctor but is running a pathology lab and for which purpose he has purchased the machinery from the OP. This implies that he is engaging other people to work in the laboratory meaning thereby that the complainant is working for profit and not for his livelihood. Basing our view on the judgments discussed, this Commission is of the considered view that this Commission does not have jurisdiction to entertain this complaint as the complainant is not a consumer.
File be consigned to record room after providing copy of the order to the party.
