Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

The fact of the Complaint Case in brief is that the Complainant carrying a transport business for his livelihood and buy one ‘TATA DIESEL VEHICLE’ form M/s. French Motor Car Company Ltd. That said vehicle is financed under Loan Agreement by M/s. Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Co. Ltd. That the Complainant entered in to a Loan Agreement being No.-XVFPHOW00000996137 with the Opposite Parties for financed of Rs. 20,00,000/- being Vehicle Regn. No.-WB-11-C-2832 and loan disbursed on 27.06.2013 against tenure 59 EMI’s for Instalment Period 01.08.2013 to 01.06.2018. Opposite Parties without due process of law seized the said vehicle from KEONJHAR on 12.03.2017 at 11.00 a.m. with working condition of the Vehicle and at the same time Opposite Parties issued an “Inventory of Vehicle Document” of the said Vehicle to the Complainant.

Over the issue of seizure, some correspondences taken place between the parties and finally Complainant filed this case claiming Total IDV of the insured vehicle i.e. Rs. 18,60,000/- from the OP along with compensation + litigation cost.

Heard both sides over the matter. Perused as well as the W.V filed by O.P and other documents in question.

Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the O.P raised maintainability of the Complaint Case contending inter alia on the part of “commercial purpose”. Ld. Advocate of the Complainant, however, vehemently disputed such contention.

Perused the record. It appears to me that Complainant has transport business, the details of it are given below:-

Case No.             Name of the Complainant       Vehicle No.          Pending before

                                      (Tata LPT)

CC/962/2017        Ram Deo Pandit                 WB-11C-7632    WBSCDRC (Bench-II)

CC/491/2017         -Do-                                   WB-11C-2832                -Do-

CC/471/2017         -Do-                                   WB-11C-4832                -Do-

Now the observation of Hon’ble Apex Court on the issue of ‘commercial purpose’ is as follows:-

Synco Textiles Pvt Ltd- Vs- Greaves Cotton Company Ltd    I(1991) CPJ 499 (SC)

“Persons buying good either for resale or for use in large scale profit making activity will not be ‘consumer’ entitled to protection under the Act”.

Laxmi Engineering Works –Vs- P.S.G.Industrial Institute  (1995) 3 SCC 583

“The goods bought must be used by the buyer himself, by employing himself for earning his livelihood…. 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.”

Sunil Kohli & Ors –Vs- M/s Purearth Infrastructure Ltd  AIR 2019 SC 5117

“Complainants who booked premises in question with intention of their self employment or self use are consumers for purpose of the Act”.

Cheema Engineering Services –Vs- Rajan Singh (1997) 1 SCC 131

“Self-employment connotes altogether a different concept , namely, he alone uses the machinery purchased for the purpose of manufacture by employing himself in working out or producing the goods for earning his livelihood.  ‘He’ includes the members of his family.

“Birla Technologies Ltd-Vs-Neutral Glass & Allied Industries Ltd (2011) 1 SCC 525.

“Consumer complaint is not maintainable if thing purchased is for commercial purpose.”

Madan Kr Singh(Dead) through L.R. –Vs- District Magistrate, Sultanpur & Ors.   (2009) 9 SCC 79

“He would be a consumer , even if he was to employ a driver for running the truck since even then he would have continued to earn his livelihood from it and of course by means of self-employment.”

Paramount Digital Colour Lab & Ors  -Vs- Agfa India Pvt Ltd & Ors  (2018) 14  SCC 81

“In case of exigencies, if a person trains another person to operate the machine so as to produce the final product based on skill and effort in the matter of photography and development , the same cannot take such person out of the definition of ‘consumer’.”

It is the settled position of law that, where the purchased goods is used/operated by the purchaser himself for the purpose of earning livelihood and sometimes by engaging an operator/employee, he would be considered as a consumer. However, when such commercial activities do not remain confined to smaller scale, the same are not adjudicable under the 1986 Act.

Accordingly, I do not find any irrationality with the submission of O.P. The Complaint Case, as such, stands dismissed without any cost. However, in the interest of natural justice, the Complainant is given due liberty to approach the competent Court of Law for relief. In that case, he may pray for the benefit of the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works v. P.S.G. Industrial Institute II (1995) CPJ 1 (SC) : 1995 3 SCC 583 for the purpose of exclusion of time spent in pursuing his case before the Consumer Fora.