Challenge in this Revision Petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”) is to the order dated 25.01.2012 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh at Lucknow (for short “the State Commission”) in Appeal No.211 of 2011. By the impugned order, the State Commission has allowed the Appeal preferred by the Appellant, M/s Slar Impect, in part and modified the order dated 07.01.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Meerut (for short “the District Forum”) directing the Appellant to pay ₹1,99,595/- with interest @ 15% from 20.11.2009 to the Respondent/Complainant within two months together with costs of ₹5,000/-. Default interest @ 18% p.a., if the amount was not paid within the stipulated time, was also awarded. The brief facts as set out in the Complaint are that the Complainant had purchased two hot water solar systems with the capacity of 500 LPD make Tata BP Solar make for a sum of ₹1,99,595/- for the hotel for supply of hot water. The Complainant was assured of good quality with one year warranty, but after some time it is stated that the solar systems had become defunct, as a result of which the hotel clients were inconvenienced as there was no supply of hot water. The Complainant issued a legal notice on 18.09.2010 seeking refund of the -3- amount paid together with compensation of ₹30,000/- for the inconvenience suffered. The Opposite Parties vide their letter dated 12.02.2010, though, admitted that the system was faulty, did not get it repaired or replace the existing defective system. The Opposite Parties were set ex parte before the District Forum as they did not appear before the District Forum despite service of notice. The District Forum allowed the Complaint directing the Opposite Parties to refund ₹1,99,595/- with interest @ 15% p.a. from 20.11.2009 and also pay ₹30,000/- per month for damages and ₹25,000/- as compensation and ₹5,000/- as costs. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the Opposite Parties preferred an Appeal before the State Commission and raised a ground that the Complainant was not a “Consumer” as the purchase of the solar system was made for a hotel, which is for commercial purpose. The State Commission had given a finding that the solar system had become defective during the warranty period and despite several Complaints, there was no response from the Opposite Parties and that the solar system was purchased for livelihood. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners argued that the Complainant, namely, M/s Hotel Samrat Havens is run by a Private -4- Limited Company which has a Director and purchase of solar systems by a hotel cannot be construed for livelihood and hence the Complainant is not a Consumer. Before reaching at the conclusion, it would be appropriate to read the definition of “Consumer” under the Act. The definition of “Consumer” as defined in Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act reads as follows: (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. (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 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 services for any commercial purposes; 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 Synco Textiles Private Limited v. Greaves Colton and Co. Ltd. (1991 (1) CPJ 499), the Hon’ble National Commission has dealt with the meaning of the words “for any commercial purpose” in the following words (majority opinion): -5- “….The words "for any commercial purpose" are wide enough to take in all cases where goods are purchased for being used in any activity directly intended to generate profit. According to the meaning given in standard dictionaries, the expression commercial' means- "connected with, or engaged in commerce. mercantile; having profit as the main aim,, (See Collins English Dictionary). "Pertaining to commerce: mercantile" (See Chamber's Twentieth Century Dictionary) The meaning of the expression 'commerce' as given in the dictionaries is: "exchange of merchandise, especially, on a large scale" (See the Concise oxford Dictionary) "interchange of merchandise on a large scale between nations or individuals: extended trade or traffic" (See Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary) Going by the plain dictionary meaning of the words used in the definition section the intention of Parliament must be understood to be to exclude from the scope of the expression 'consumer' any person who buys goods for the purpose of their being used in any activity engaged on a large scale for the purpose of making Profit….. ……In order that exclusion clause should apply it is however necessary that there should be a close nexus between the transaction of purchase of goods and the large scale activity carried on for earning profit” Hon'ble Supreme Court in “Laxmi Engineering Works vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute, 1995 SCC (3) 583, wherein the scope of the Explanation of Section 2 (1) (d) has been explained in detail: "..... The National Commission appears to have been taken a consistent view that where a person purchases goods 'with a view to using such goods for carrying on any activity on a large scale for the purpose of earning profit', he will not be a 'consumer' within the meaning of the Act. Broadly affirming the said view and more particularly, with a view to obviate any confusion - the expression 'large scale' is not a very precise expression - Parliament stepped in and added the explanation to Section 2 (d) (i) by Ordinance, 1993. 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 clarifies that -6- 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. In other words, if the buyer of goods uses them himself, i.e. by self-employment, for earning his livelihood, it would not be treated as a 'commercial purpose' and 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". Following the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the afore-stated judgments and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the view that the Complainant has not purchased the solar systems in question for earning his livelihood but for his hotel which is run on a commercial scale, and therefore, the Complaint filed before the District Forum is not maintainable as the Complainant is not a “Consumer” falling within the definition of Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act. For all the above mentioned reasons, this Revision Petition is allowed and the Complaint is dismissed. | 
