JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE, PRESIDING MEMBER

            By this order, we propose to dispose the above noted revision petitions arising out of the impugned order of the State Commission Circuit Bench No.3 Rajasthan, Jaipur whereby the State Commission accepted the respective appeals filed by the respondents complainants and directed thus:

“Therefore, we set aside the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum.  Both the complaints filed on behalf of the complainants are allowed and it is ordered that the respondent Bank will compensate the actual amount of the bills sent by them and will pay Rs.10,000/- to each of the complainants against mental agony and Rs.5000/- against costs of the complaint to each of the complainants.  Orders be complied within one month.  Accordingly, both these appeals are allowed.”

2.         Briefly stated facts relevant for the disposal of the above noted revision petitions are that respondent M.G.Textile Bheelwara and Bhaskar Textile Bheelwara are respectively engaged in the business of textiles at Bheelwara.  The said two firms sold certain material to M/s Sharda Traders of Bihar.  M/s Bhaskar Textiles sent goods worth Rs.58004/- to M/s Sharda Traders, Amawan Bazar, District Kaimoor, Bihar vide transport vide bill No.148 and relevant papers were sent for collection through Bheelwara Branch of petitioner bank.  Similarly M/s M G Textiles sent goods worth Rs.47,795/- to Sharda Traders through transport and the said firm also sent the papers for collection through Bheelwara Branch of the petitioner Bank.  It is undisputed that the Amawan Bazar, District Kaimoor, Bihar branch of the petitioner Bank received goods receipt through registered AD post.  However, the goods were delivered to M/s Sharda Traders but the consideration amount of respective bills were not collected by the petitioner bank.  On inquiry from the respective transport companies, the complainants came to know that the material was released to M/s Sharda Traders on production of bilties (goods received).  The petitioner Bank, however, had not collected the consideration amount while releasing the goods receipt to Sharda Traders.  Claiming this to be deficiency in service the respective respondents filed consumer complaints before the District Forum Bheelwara.

3.         The petitioner Bank resisted the complaint on merits and it also took the plea that the complaints were not maintainable as the respondent complainants were not covered within the definition of consumer as envisaged under section 2 (1 (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, ‘the Act).

4.       The District Forum Bheelwara rejected the complaints observing that the complaints raised complexed factual issues which was not possible to be decided summarily without recording voluminous evidence and granting liberty of cross examination to the parties and such a dispute could possibly be decided by the Civil Court.

5.       Being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum, the respondent complainant preferred appeals against the impugned order and the State Commission Rajasthan Circuit Bench No.3 Jaipur vide the impugned order set aside the order of the District Forum and directed the petitioner Bank to pay to the respective complainants the actual amount of the goods which were released without collection of money by the petitioner with compensation of Rs.10,000/- each for harassment and mental agony and Rs.5000/- each as cost of litigation.

6.       It is against this order, the revision petitions have been filed.

7.       Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order of the State Commission allowing the complaints is without jurisdiction for the reason that State Commission has failed to appreciate that admittedly both the respondents complainants had availed the services of the bank for commercial purpose and as such they are not consumers as per the definition under section 2 (1) (d) of the Act.

8.       Learned R N Pareek, Advocate for the respondent on the contrary has argued in support of the impugned order.

9.       Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act defines the term ‘consumer’ as under :

2. (1) 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) [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 purpose]”

(Explanation -  For the purpose 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.”)

10.     On reading of the above, it is clear that a person is a consumer if he buys any goods or hires or avails of any service for consideration paid or payable provided such goods were not purchased or services were not hired or availed for a commercial purpose.  The definition includes the user of such goods or the beneficiary of such services.  The explanation to section 2 (1) (d) defines the term ‘commercial purpose’ by providing that the commercial purpose does not include the goods bought and used or the service availed by such person exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self employment.

11.     Admittedly both the respondents firms are in the business of textile product and they sent the goods sold by them to M/s Sharda Traders by transport and the papers were allegedly sent through the petitioner Bank who was required to collect the payment before releasing bilties to M/s Sharda Traders.  From this it is evident that the services of the petitioner was availed by both the respondents complainants in relation to commercial purpose i.e. their business transaction. Therefore, in our considered view, the respondents are not covered within the definition of consumer.  As such, they could not have maintained the consumer complaint. In our aforesaid view, we are supported by the judgment of Supreme Court in the matter of Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. P.S.G.Industrial Institute (1995) 3 SCC 583.  The State Commission while deciding the appeal has ignored this fact.  Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained.

12.     In view of the discussion above, we allow both the revision petitions, set aside the order of the State Commission and dismiss the complaints with no order as to costs.