1.       Heard Mr. Ritesh Khare , learned counsel for the Petitioners in all the Revision Petitions and Mr. Ramneek Mishra, learned counsel for the Cold Storages in the respective Petitions.

2.       The District Commission as well as the State Commission have  held that the claim of the Petitioners is not maintainable as they do not fall within the definition of the word ‘consumers’ as defined under section 2 (7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 ( in short, ‘the Act).  Undisputedly, the present complaints are instituted under the 2019 Act. 

3.       It is also undisputed that the Petitioners availed of the services of the Cold Storages for the storage of their potatoes and it is the allegation of the Petitioners that it is the deficiency in services as against such storage and the loss suffered by them that they had filed the complaints.   The question is as to whether the Petitioners were availing the services as defined under section 2 (7) of the Act, which was for commercial purposes or not ?.  Both the Commissions below have found it against the Petitioners and aggrieved, the Petitioners are before this Commission.

4.       In order to appreciate this controversy, it would be appropriate to place on record the development of the law and the amendments made in respect of the aforesaid provision which has been very aptly quoted in the shape of a chart in the latest decision of the Apex Court in Shriram Chits (India) (P) Ltd. v. Raghachand Associates, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 851, which is extracted hereinunder :

12. It is against the above backdrop that we are called upon to determine the present lis. Instead of remanding the matter back to the Consumer Forum we intend to decide the maintainability challenge here itself. The question that has eluded three judicial forums has now to be settled once and for all. That question simply is : Whether the service obtained by the complainant was for a commercial purpose?

13. Section 2(7) of the Act defines a consumer to mean:

      Section 2(7) “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;

14. The provision as it stands now (as extracted above) was not how it appeared when it was grafted in the original Act. The definition of ‘consumer’ has undergone textual amendments in 1993 and in 2002. For ease of reference, the evolutionary history of the provision from its origin until the 2019 Act is captured in the table below:

15. Structurally, there are three parts to the definition of a consumer. We can deconstruct Section 2(7)(i) as a matter of illustration.³ The first part sets out the jurisdictional prerequisites for a person to qualify as a consumer - there must be purchase of goods, for consideration⁴. The second part is an ‘exclusion clause’ [‘carve out’] which has the effect of excluding the person from the definition of a consumer. The carve out applies if the person has obtained goods for the purpose of ‘resale’ or for a ‘commercial purpose’. The third part is an exception to the exclusion clause - it relates to Explanation (a) to Section 2(7) which limits the scope of ‘commercial purpose’. According to the said explanation, the expression, ‘commercial purpose’ does not include persons who bought goods ‘exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood, by means of self-employment’. The significance of this structural break down will be discussed shortly.

16. The carve out existed as part of the original enactment. However, the Explanation to Section 2(7) was inserted by amendment in 1993.

5.       A perusal of the said comparative table and on reading of the provisions, it is more than clear that the exception to the exception whereby the Legislature had consciously allowed the complaints to be maintainable in respect of goods being purchased for self-employment and livelihood, has been included, whereas the said provision does not apply at all to services.  This distinction having been made under the 2019 Act by making a conscious departure in respect of services, any such activity, which is for commercial purpose on a large scale is, therefore, outside the purview of the Act in terms of Section 2 (7) thereof.  In the present case, the transaction is of services availed by stocking the potatoes in a cold storage for preservation and are, therefore, not the goods as defined under the 2019 Act.  Consequently, the question of invoking the phrase of ‘earning his livelihood by means of self-employment’ does not arise in terms of the new Act, which applies only to goods and not the services.

6.       The fact of the nature of the trade is also not in dispute as admittedly, the Petitioners are not engaged in any farming or agricultural activity or producing potatoes.  The potatoes have been purchased by them for further trading.  The said disclosure, therefore, itself is sufficient to infer the nature of the trade which has also been disclosed categorically in paragraph no.1 of the Complaint in CC No. 5 of 2022 , quoted hereinunder:

“That, the applicant is proprietor of M/s Pt. Meena Sharma Trading, Haldwani, District Nainital, Uttarakhand and is engaged in the business of sale and purchase of potato for livelihood of herself and her family members.”

7.       As explained above, the assertion of the purpose for livelihood of the complainant(s) or family members is not at all relevant for the present controversy where the potatoes have already been purchased by them and have been sent to the cold storage for availing the services of storage.  The transaction, therefore, is services and not about the goods, hence the explanation is not applicable on the facts of the present case.

8.       The nature of the activity presently involved is the trade of potatoes by the Petitioners and it is in order to generate profits for the said trade that the petitioners have availed the services of storing the potatoes purchased by them in these cold storages.  The purpose, therefore, is to trade in potatoes, which in the present case is cumulatively an approximate quantity of more than 25000 bags in respect of all the complaints.  This, therefore, is clearly a commercial purpose activity of large scale which does not fall within the scope of the Act and, therefore, the Petitioners will have to avail of the remedies otherwise before the appropriate Forum, which can also be the Civil Court. We consequently, do find any ground to interfere in these revision petitions as there is neither any illegality or any irregularity so as to warrant exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction vested under section 58 1 (b) of the Act. 

9.       Accordingly, all the revision petitions are consigned without prejudice to the rights of the Petitioners to approach the appropriate Forum / Civil Court for redressal of their grievances.  It will be open to the Petitioners to seek any benefit of limitation that may be permissible in law.