PER JUSTICE R.K. BATTA, PRESIDING MEMBER

     Heard Counsel for the petitioner, who places reliance on Madan Kumar Singh (Dead) Through L.R. Vs. District Magistrate, Sultanpur and Others – (2009) 9 SCC 79 and submitted before us that the State Commission erred in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner was not a consumer and the truck had been purchased for commercial purpose.

          The petitioner had obtained finance for the truck from the respondents and had defaulted in payment of the instalments.  Seven cheques issued by the petitioner had been dishonoured and the vehicle was repossessed and sold in auction.  The District Forum directed payment of the cost of the vehicle amounting to Rs.8.5 lacs with 9% interest thereon as also compensation of Rs.10,000/- as well as cost of Rs.1,000/-.  This order was challenged by the OP/Respondent before the State Commission.  The State Commission relying upon the judgement of the Apex Court in Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute – (1995) 3 SCC 583 and Eicher Motors Ltd. Vs. Dilip Chandra Kant Vaidya & Ors. – I (2007) CPJ 51 (NC) of the National Commission held that the vehicle in question had been purchased for commercial purpose and not for earning livelihood by self-employment.  The State Commission, therefore, dismissed the complaint on the ground that the Petitioner/Complainant was not a consumer.  However, it was observed by the State Commission that the complainant shall be free to avail any remedy available to him under any other law.  This order is subject matter of challenge in this revision.

          The Apex Court in the case of Laxmi Engineering Works (Supra) has threadbare examined the relevant provisions under the Consumer Protection Act.  The relevant portion of the observations of the Apex Court judgement having bearing in the matter are as under:

“11.       ……

The explanation excludes certain purposes from the purview of the expression “commercial purpose” – a case of exception to an exception.  Let us elaborate: a person who buys a typewriter or a car and uses them for his personal use is certainly a consumer but a person who buys a typewriter or a car for typing others’ work for consideration or for plying the car as a taxi can be said to be using the typewriter/car for a commercial purpose.  The explanation however clarified that in certain situations, purchase of goods for “commercial purpose: would not yet take the purchaser out of the definition of expression ‘consumer’.  If the commercial use is by the purchaser himself for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment, such purchaser of goods is yet a ‘consumer’.  In the illustration given above, if the purchaser himself works on typewriter or plies the car as a taxi himself, he does not cease to be a consumer for the purposes of the Act.  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 purpose to which the goods bought are put to.  The several words employed in the explanation, viz., “uses them by himself”, exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood: and “by means of self-employment” make the intention of Parliament abundantly clear, that the goods bought must be used by the buyer himself, by employing himself for earning his livelihood.  A few more illustrations would serve to emphasise what we say.  A person who purchases an auto-rickshaw to ply it himself on hire for earning his livelihood would be a consumer.  Similarly, a purchaser of a truck who purchases it for plying it as a public carrier by himself would be a consumer.  A person who purchases a lathe machine or other machine to operate it himself for earning his livelihood would be a consumer.  (In the above illustrations, if such buyer takes the assistance of one or two persons to assist/help him in operating the vehicle or machinery, he does not cease to be a consumer.)  As against this a person who purchases an auto-rickshaw, a car or a lathe machine or other machine to be plied or operated exclusively by another person would not be a consumer.  This is the necessary limitation flowing from the expressions “used by him”, and “by means of self-employment” in the explanation.  The ambiguity in the meaning of the words  “for the purpose of earning his livelihood” is explained and clarified by the other two sets of words”.

Following the judgement of the Apex Court in Laxmi Engineering Works (Supra), this Commission in Eicher Motors Ltd. (Supra) has held that where a person had purchased a number of buses, he could not quantify to be a consumer since he had purchased the same for commercial purpose and not for self-employment.

In the case before us, we had directed the petitioner to file an affidavit as how many trucks he owned besides the truck in question. The petitioner has filed affidavit in which it is stated that he had obtained finance for purchasing 4 trucks from the respondents – M/s. Cholamandalam DBS Finance Ltd. and ICICI Bank.  Thus, it is crystal clear that the petitioner had obtained finance for  truck in question for commercial purpose and the petitioner has failed to establish that the same was for earning livelihood by self-employment.  In fact, the petitioner is doing transport business using 4 trucks and in our opinion, he does not quantify to be a consumer within the meaning of Consumer under Section 2 (1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act.  The conclusion arrived at by the State Commission is, therefore, well founded and does not call for interference.  The revision is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.