JUSTICE J.M. MALIK 1. This case has a chequered history, as the complaint was filed on 04.02.1994. This case also travelled to the Apex Court on an interim application. The Honle Apex Court dismissed the Civil Appeal, on 13.03.2013. Previously, it remained pending before the Arbitrator, for a considerable time. The key question which swirls around the controversy is, hether the transaction in question, is ommercial? If so, what is its effect? 2. The facts of the case are these. M/s. Rohit Chemical & Allied Industries Pvt. Ltd., the complainant is registered Private Limited Company at Village Sallewal, Tehsil, Nallahgarh, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh. The National Research Development Corporation, OP, has its office at New Delhi. The Regional Research Laboratory, Bhuvaneshwar, Odisha, developed a process for the manufacture of synthetic Iron Oxide, red and black, and other know-how given on the process. The full rights of the said invention were assigned to the OP Corporation by the said Laboratory. The complainant company approached the OP for the grant of licence of the above referred process to assess and invention. The OP Corporation agreed to grant licence to the complainant company to use the said invention and the process to manufacture and sell the articles, made in accordance with the said invention, covered by the Indian Patents Act, vide licence dated 01.3.1983, on a consideration of payment of Rs.5,000/-, for a period of 10 years from 01.02.1983. The complainant was to pay to the OP Corporation Royalty at 2on the net ex-factory sale price of the material manufactured by it in accordance with the said invention from the date of comments meant for its production. The amount of Rs.5,000/- was paid. The OP Corporation prepared a project report profile dated 17.03.1983, to provide the complainant the technical know-how and supplied the same to the complainant. As per the project report, the proposed total cost of the project was assessed at Rs.23,65,000/-. The OP Corporation also furnished the detailed specifications of the machinery, building and other various modes of development of land required for the project in this report. 3. Himachal Pradesh Financial Corporation sanctioned the term loan vide letter dated 14.06.1984 and first installment of the loan was released on 22.01.1985. In accordance with the project file, construction and the installation of machinery activity started under the supervision of the OP. The complainant company incurred a sum of Rs.1,40,140.03 on the machinery and preliminary expenses. They further spent a sum of Rs.7,04,126.65 in the year 1984-85. The complainant company spent a sum of Rs.9,13,495.09 during the year 1985-86. The complainant company further spent a sum of Rs.6,28,699.80, in the year 1985-86, towards the land development and building construction. 4. In May, 1985, the Directors of the complainant company visited Regional Research Laboratory, Bhuvaneshwar, Odisha and met Dr. J.S.Murthy, the Project Co-ordinator and apprised him of the position of the project regarding completion of the construction of the building and also pleaded that they should finalise the details of the lay-out of the project at the earliest, so that it could be completed without any further undue delay as the company was incurring heavy interest on the capital investment. Dr.J.S.Murthy gave some suggestions. The recommendations were made available vide letter dated 02.04.1986 to the Himachal Pradesh Financial Corporation. The complainant was also supplied by the Regional Research Laboratory, Bhuvaneshwar, Odisha, more data, including the flow-sheet, along with drawings of the machinery and the building. Thus, a complete year was lost/wasted due to the inefficiency and inaction on the part of the OP due to lapse in providing the correct know-how in the installation of the project. 5. It is thus clear that the original project file was not prepared with due care and diligence and that is why further additions and reductions to the machinery were proposed in the year 1986. The original profile was handed over in the year 1983. It was only after the personal visit of the Directors of the complainant company to the Regional Research Laboratory, Bhubaneshwar and the Corporation at New Delhi requested some further alternatives and reductions which were to be approved by the OP Corporation. The complainant suffered heavy losses. 6. The complainant company spent a sum of Rs.28,281.48 as per preliminary expenses on machinery and a sum of Rs.33,425/- towards land development and building in the year 1986-87. The complainant spent Rs.5,06,738.26 on machinery and preliminary expenses and a sum of Rs.1,47,392.75 towards land development and building construction in the year 1987-88. The building was modified, plant was strictly installed in accordance with flow sheet and drawings and suggestions of Regional Research Laboratory, Bhubaneshwar. The Corporation inspected the plant, etc., in March, 1988. The OP Corporation did not pay any heed and, therefore, the complainant had to rush to New Delhi to apprise the Corporation with the latest position and requested for personal inspection of the plant, without further delay. The Branch at New Delhi did not agree and suggested to make the request before the Regional Research Laboratory, BBS. After many requests, Experts from Regional Research Laboratory, Bhubaneshwar was arranged in July, 1988. The visit was delayed by four months. Dr.J.S.Murthy, and Mr.T.P.Prasad of Regional Research Laboratory visited the plant from 05.07.1988 to 12.07.1988 at the expenses borne by the complainant company. They suggested some modifications vide letter dated 04.11.1988. The said modifications were effected and a huge amount of expenditure was incurred by the complainant company in complying with the fresh suggestions/modifications which were totally contrary to the original project profile and flow sheets and the drawings. The complainant had spent a sum of Rs.5,95,538.85. It appears that the OP Corporation was merely experimenting with their new process formula. Further sum of Rs.68,665.59 was spent in the year 1988-89, for building and lab equipment. 7. The complainant requested the OP to visit the plant and vide telex message dated 12.09.1988, they were informed that the Experts would visit the plant from 14.10.1988 to 19.10.1988. However, that visit was put off, for non-availability of seats in the flight. Ultimately, the Experts visited the plant from 23.11.1988 to 30.11.1988, after an inordinate delay of more than two months. The Experts carried out the Dissolution of scrap by HCL in the dissolution tank after pumping of 1400 ltrs of HCL and adding 360 kg of iron scrap manually, by directing a worker to go over the top of the Dissolution tank and put the scrap into tank. Due to sudden addition of scrap into the tank, the reaction took place very vigorously and most of the HCL acid spilled out of the tank to the great surprise of the Experts. Some other suggestions and recommendations were made. It was suggested that the scrap into the Dissolution tank should be put slowly and to make a provision for water tap at the top level of the tank and suggested the complainant company to go for production in stages, vide letter dated 04.11.1988. The complainant carried out the modifications and spent a sum of Rs.1,17,242.31ps on machinery, etc., and a sum of Rs.7349.42ps on Laboratory equipment, in the year 1989-90. After carrying out those modifications, the plant started production, on 01.06.1989. 8. However, the unit did not produce the desired capacity of 500 kg a day and on the contrary, the product was much below the capacity and that, too, of substandard quality. The complainant had to suffer heavy losses. The products for the year 1989-90 to 1991-92, were rejected and the complainant suffered loss of Rs.1,41,432.71ps in the year 1989-90 and Rs.2,31,204.70ps in the year 1991-92. Whatever was sold by the complainant, was not enough to even meet the electricity expenditure incurred in the production thereof. For instance, the electricity bill for the year 1989-90 was Rs.22,515.10ps, but the return realized from sale in the year, 1989-90 was only Rs.7,655/-. The complainant company had also incurred a huge liability on account of interest on the loans taken to make the investments on machinery and building. 9. On 15.06.1990, there was a Dissolution tank blast in the unit and as a result of that, a worker lost his life and the complainant company had to pay Rs.51,897/- as compensation to the kith and kin of the said worker. The complainant company installed a syntax Dissolution tank on a newly laid platform and incurred an expenditure of Rs.32,191.76. After the blast, no worker, labourer, dared to come there because there was a lurking fear of blast. Consequently, the complainant made a provision for conveyor belt to carry the scrap up to the mouth of the Dissolution tank, in order to prevent any further loss of life. Yet, another blast took place in the Dissolution tank, on 11.11.1990, but fortunately, there was no loss of life, due to provision of conveyor belt. 10. The grouse of the complainant is that correct know-how of the process was not supplied to the complainant. The complainant had to seek advice from other Experts. The complainant company ultimately managed to procure know-how for the manufacture of said product from other sources and had to make provision by way of installation of some other new machinery for the production of same product. The complainant company invested a sum of Rs.10,42,000/- on the installation of the aforesaid machinery. The complainant approached the HPFC for an additional term loan of Rs.5.50 lakhs. The entire machinery which was recommended by the OP Corporation originally is lying as a junk material. The complainant company had started the manufacture of the product on the basis of the know-how gathered from other sources with the new machinery not connected with the original project. The new machinery was installed in the year 1993-94 and as such, the complainant is not liable to pay any Royalty to the OP Corporation in terms of the agreement, dated 01.03.1983. Himachal Pradesh Financial Corporation came upon the complainant company with a heavy hand and sought the locking of the unit, due to non-demand of the interest as well as principal amount of loan. However, the matter was stayed by the Honle High Court of Himachal Pradesh, vide order dated 05.02.1993. The OP Corporation in the meantime, served notice on demand claiming the payment of Royalty vide notice dated 08.11.1993. The claim was refuted by counter notice dated 01.12.1993. The complainant also made demand for reimbursement of huge losses suffered by the complainant. The complainant company alleged that a period of 5-6 years has been wasted. Ultimately this complaint was filed before this Commission on 04.02.1994, with the following prayer:- hat it is, therefore, prayed that the respondent Corporation may kindly be summoned and directed to pay to the complainant company the said sum of Rs.82,25,722.42ps as per Annexure along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum till realization. Any other relief may also be awarded to the complainant which this Honle Forum may think just fit and proper in the circumstances of the case The complainant has claimed remuneration of two Director in the sum of Rs.48,000/- per year, for six years, as detailed in Annexure A. 11. The OP has contested the case. 12. We have perused the written synopses of both the parties and heard the counsel for the parties. The argument advanced by the counsel for the OP, has five following prongs. To top it all, it was argued that this is a ommercial transaction and as such, the complainant is not a onsumer Secondly, no service was hired, the complainant took the licence as such, no deficiency can be attributed to the OP. Thirdly, the case is barred by time. The cause of action arose as back as in the year 1990, but the present case was filed in the year 1994. It must be mentioned here that in the year, 1990, there was no Special Law of Limitation, so far as Consumer Protection Act, is concerned. The Law of Limitation was introduced, for the first time, in Section 24-A of the Act, w.e.f. 18.06.1993. This complaint was filed before this Commission, on 04.02.1994. Fourthly, It was submitted that the case of the complainant is very weak on merits. The attention of this Commission was invited towards the licence itself. Its relevant para, runs as follows:- 0. These presents shall not be construed as a warranty by the Corporation of the novelty, utility and workability of the said invention 13. On the other hand, the counsel for the complainant submitted that this clause is opposed to public policy. The learned counsel for the complainant has also cited an authority from the Apex Court reported in Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Brojo Nath Ganguly & Anr, (1986) 3 SCC 156. The last submission made by the counsel for the OP was that in the prayer clause, the complainant has asked to compensate for the land as well, and has demanded remuneration of its Directors. 14. The case was referred to the Arbitrator, Mr. Justice M.S.Gujral. He filed Award, but could not complete the Award due to weak eye-sight. Thereafter, this Commission, vide order dated 19.07.2006, ordered : pposite party having failed to cross-examine said Tilak Ram despite having been given number of adjournments for that purpose, the Arbitrator had closed the cross-examination of this witness. Having considered particularly para 8 of the said decision and the facts that complaint is pending for over 11 years, both the parties have spent considerable amount in prosecuting the matter before Mr.Justice Gujral and recording of evidence afresh may take another couple of years, it would be fair and equitable that the complaint is decided on the basis of the evidence recorded and documents produced before Mr.Justice Gujral 15. The principal objection raised by the OP Corporation is that the complainant is ot a consumer The attention of this Commission was invited towards the licence itself, which mentions:- HEREAS the Regional Research Laboratory, Bhubaneswar (hereinafter called the esearch Institute has developed a process for the manufacture of Synthetic Iron Oxide red and black which is covered by Indian Patent No.143745 and other know-how given on the process (hereinafter called he said invention and full rights in the said invention have been assigned to the Corporation. AND WHEREAS the Corporation is in possession of and is entitled to full rights in the said invention. AND WHEREAS the Corporation has agreed to grant to the Grantee (Complainant) such licence to use the said invention and the process and to manufacture and sell articles made in accordance with the said invention on the terms and conditions hereinafter contained. During the period of the said Grantee, will pay to the Corporation for 10 years a royalty of 24% on the net ex-factory sale price of the material manufactured by it in accordance with the said invention and marketed by such royalties shall become due on the First day of April and on the First day of October in every year, in respect of the articles manufactured and marketed or used by the Grantee during the preceding half-year and shall be paid by the First day of May and First day of November of that year. In default of payment of such royalties on the due dates, the Grantee shall pay interest on the amount in default at the rate of Fifteen per cent per annum 16. Para 3 of the complaint at page of the paper-book, runs as follows:- hat the complainant company approached the respondent Corporation for the grant of a licence of the above referred process and invention and after negotiations, the respondent corporation agreed to grant the licence to the complainant company to use the said invention and the process and to manufacture and sell articles made in accordance with the said invention covered by the Indian Patent No.143745, vide a licence Deed dated 1st March, 1983 on a consideration of payment of Rs.5,000/- for a period of 10 years from first day of February, 1983. The complainant was further liable to pay to the respondent Corporation royalty at the rate of 2 percent on the net ex-factory sale price of the material manufactured by it in accordance with the said invention from the date of commencement of its production. The respondent Corporation was to provide the necessary and the entire KNOW-HOW for the establishment and commencement of production of the Unit 17. The last sentence, i.e. the marked one, finds no mention in the licence and was unnecessarily added to show that the case of the complainant is very strong. 18. Attention of this Commission was also invited towards Memorandum of Association of Rohit Chemical Allied Industries Private Limited, complainant. The main object mentioned in the said Memorandum of Association is as under :- II. (A) The main objects to be pursued by the Company, on its incorporation are :- 1. To carry on the business of manufacturers, importers, exporters and dealers in all kinds of organic and inorganic chemicals and chemical products of every nature and description and compounds, intermediate derivatives and bye-products thereof and products to be made therefrom including specifically Red oxide natural and synthetic, Glue, Sulphuric Acid, Nitric Acid, Hydrochloric Acid, etc., either Pigment Dyes, Ultramarine Blue, Dye stuffs, Basic and rapid fast colours, food direct colours, Resins, derived from phosphate mines, lime stone quarries, bauxite mines and other mines and other natural deposits useful or suitable in the manufacturing of chemicals and chemical products even of medicural and daily use value 19. On the other hand, counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that the complainant company is a onsumer He submitted that the argument of maintainability of complaint raised by OP on the ground that complainant is ot a onsumer was adjudicated vide order dated 24.05.1997 by the Arbitrator on the application of OP, which held that complainant is a onsumer Again, the OP sought review of the order dated 24.05.1997, but the same was not pressed during the course of arguments by the counsel for the OP, which has been recorded in the order dated 12.11.1997. He has placed heavy reliance on the case reported in Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Ashok Iron Works Pvt. Ltd., AIR 2009 SC 1905, it was held :- 0. Recently, this Court in the case of Southern Petrochemical Industries Co.Ltd. Vs. Electricity Inspector & ETIO & Ors., (2007) 5 SCC 447, made the following pertinent observations:- 49. It may be that electricity has been considered to be oodsbut the same has to be considered having regard to the definition of oodscontained in clause (12) of the Article 366 of the Constitution of India. When this Court held electricity to be oodsfor the purpose of application of sales tax laws and other tax laws, in our opinion, the same would have nothing to do with the construction of Entry 53 of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India 21.xxxx 22. Whether the supply of electricity by KPTC to a consumer is sale and purchase of goods within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Act, 1986? We do not think so. Although title of Section or marginal note speaks of he sale of electricity by the Board to persons other than licenseesbut the marginal note or title of the Section cannot afford any legitimate aid to the construction of Section. Section 49 speaks of supply of electricity to any person not being a licensee upon said terms and conditions as a Board thinks fit and for the purpose of such supply free uniform tariffs. This court has already held in Southern Petrochemical Industries (supra) that supply does not mean sale. . 23. xxxx 24. Learned counsel urged that the definition erviceis of limited nature and is limited to the providing facilities in connection with electricity. According to him, the facility is an expression which facilitates the supply of electricity to an installation and the definition of service does not cover supply of electricity. This contention of the learned counsel is founded on erroneous assumption that supply of electricity is a sale of electricity and the use of expression upplyis synonym for ale We have already noticed above, which we need not repeat, that supply of electricity to a consumer by KPTC is not sale of electricity. The expression upplyis not synonym for ale We reiterate what has been stated by this Court in Southern Petrochemical Industries Co. Ltd., (Supra) that supply does not mean sale. The expression ut does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose inserted in Section 2(1)(d)(ii) by the Act 62 of 2002, is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case, since the controversy relates to the period, prior to amendment 20. Learned counsel for the complainant also submitted that the case is pending before this Commission since the year 1994. The matter remained before the Arbitrator for a considerable time. No such question was ever raised. He contended that a company is a onsumer As per the above ruling, it is a erson as per law, which existed, at the relevant time in the year, 1994. The complainant also invited our attention towards the Arbitrator Award, by Honle Ms. Justice Usha Mehra, dated 23.02.2012, wherein the matter was not discussed, but the Award was passed, on some other connected matters. 21. All these arguments have left no impression upon us. It is thus clear that ratio of the authority cited by the counsel for the complainant in Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. (supra) does not dovetail with the facts of this case. It is clear that we are not bound by the judgment of the Arbitrator. This was made clear in order dated 19.07.2006. It must be borne in mind that this Commission cannot arrogate to itself, those powers which are not vested with it. No admission/concession made by the parties, can govern the law. No amount of rhetoric can change the position of law. Without sound reasoning, no argument will cohere. Both the parties, if they consent, cannot bestow the jurisdiction to any of the Tribunal or Court. The Commission has to decide the case within the parameters, set for deciding the case of jurisdiction. 22. In Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute, AIR 1995 SC 1428, it was held :- 2. Now coming back to the definition of the expression onsumerin Section 2(d), a consumer means in so far as is relevant for the purpose of this appeal, (i) a person who buys any goods for consideration; it is immaterial whether the consideration is paid or promises, or partly paid partly promised, or whether the payment of consideration is deferred; (ii) a person who uses such goods with the approval of the person who buys such goods for consideration (iii) but does not include a person who buys such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose. The expression esaleis clear enough. Controversy has, however, arisen with respect to meaning of the expression ommercial purpose It is also not defined in the Act. In the absence of a definition, we have to go by its ordinary meaning. ommercialdenotes ertaining to commerce (Chamber Twentieth Century Dictionary); it means onnected with, or engaged in commerce; mercantile; having profit as the main aim(Collins English Dictionary) whereas the word ommercemeans inancial transactions especially buying and selling of merchandise, on a large scale(Concise Oxford Dictionary). The National Commission appears to have been taking a consistent view that where a person purchases goods ith a view to using such goods for carrying on any activity on a large scale for the purpose of earning profithe will not be a onsumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Act. Broadly affirming the said view and more particularly with a view to obviate any confusion the expression arge scaleis not a very precise expression Parliament stepped in and added the explanation to Section 2(d)(i) by Ordinance/Amendment Act, 1993. The explanation excludes certain purposes from the purview of the expression ommercial purposea 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 otherswork 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 in certain situations, purchase of goods for ommercial purposewould not yet take the purchaser out of the definition of expression onsumer 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 onsumer 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 ommercial purposeand he does not cease to be a consumer for the purposes of the Act. The explanation reduces the question, what is a ommercial 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. The several words employed in the explanation, viz., ses them by himself xclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihoodand y means of self-employmentmake 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 emphasis 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 sed by him and y means of self-employmentin the explanation. The ambiguity in the meaning of the words or the purpose of earning his livelihoodis explained and clarified by the other two sets of words 23. The Honle Apex Court, in Rajeev Metal Works & Ors. Vs. The Mineral & Metal Trading Corporation Ltd., 1996 AIR 1083, took the same view and observed :- ..Whether the transaction is in the nature of buying the goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised? Whether the transaction in question excludes the person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose from the purview of the Act? It is true as contended for the appellants that the definition requires to be interpreted broadly so as to give effect to the legislative intention envisaged under the Act. But when the legislature having defined the term onsumerin broader terms, sought to exclude certain transactions from the purview of the Act what could be the meaning that would be assigned to the exclusionary clause, viz., ut does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose The intention appears to be that when the goods are exchanged between a buyer and the seller for commercial purpose or for resale, the object of the Act appears to be to exclude such commercial transactions from the purview of the Act. Instead, legislature intended to confine the redressal to the services contracted or undertaken between the seller and the onsumer defined under the Act. It is seen that the appellants admittedly entered their letters of credit with the respondent. The respondent is a statutory authority to act as canalized agency on behalf of the industries to procure required goods on their behalf from the foreign seller and acts in that behalf in terms of the letter of credit and conditions enumerated thereunder. It is seen that the respondent did not undertake any direct responsibility for supply or liability for non-supply of the goods. On the other hand, the appellants had solicited to have the goods supplied to it through the respondent and opened letter of credit in favour of the respondent. After collecting requirements from various industries in the country admittedly a consolidated demand for supply of the required quantity of the G.P. Sheets was indented with foreign sellers so as to procure the required goods for onward supply to the appellant and others. The goods supplied were required for commercial purpose, i.e., for manufacture and resale as finished goods during the course of their commercial business. Under the circumstances, the appellants intended to purchase these goods for commercial purpose, namely, to manufacture the tin sheets for resale 24. This Commission, in M/s. Sterocraft Vs. M/s. Monotype India Ltd., I (1991) CPJ 111, (Revision Petition No.7 of 1990, decided on 13.07.1990), the Bench consisting of Honle Mr.Justice V.Balakrishna Eradi, President, Smt. A.S. Vijayakar, Member, Mr.Y.Krishan, Member, Dr.Rais Ahmed, Member, held :- . It is seen from the petition and accompanying documents that the machinery was purchased by the complainant firm for the purpose of its printing press business. Since the purchase was for a commercial purpose, the complainant cannot be regarded as a onsumer falling with the definition of the said expression contained in Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 25. Under these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the complainant is ot a onsumer This Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain this case. For the reasons stated above, we refrain from speaking our piece, on other issues. The complainant can approach the appropriate Forum. The powers of the Arbitrator cannot be equated with the powers of this Commission. Arbitrator can consider the commercial matters as well. Consequently, we dismiss the complaint and grant liberty to the complainant to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of its grievances. It can take the benefit of law laid down in Laxmi Engineering Works (supra) for exclusion of time taken in bonafide litigation.