Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid communications, the appellant approached the District Forum for redressal of his grievances. The District Forum appreciating the factual matrix in entirety framed two issues for determination, which in essence are, whether the complainant was a “consumer” within the definition of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act; and whether there was any deficiency in services on the part of the opposite party. The District Forum after analysing various clauses of the MOU and the addendum and placing reliance on the decision of the Court in Faqir Chand Gulati (supra) came to hold that the transaction between the parties could not be termed as a joint venture, in order to exclude it from the purview of the Act. Accordingly, the District Forum opined that the complainant came under the definition of Consumer under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act. On the second point of deficiency as well, it partly allowed the claim in favour of the appellant-complainant by awarding a sum of Rs. 15,96,000/- towards rent for delayed construction, Rs. 19,800/- as reimbursement of vacant land tax, Rs. 70,000/- as cost for rectification of defects in the premises and Rs. 25,000/- for mental agony. It was further directed that the abovesaid sum shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint. Be it stated, cost of Rs. 10,000/- was also awarded.

6. The seminal issue that emanates for consideration is whether the appellant-complainant falls within the definition of “consumer” under Section 2(1)(d) read with the Explanation thereto of the Act. The issue that further arises for determination is whether the National Commission has rightly distinguished the authority in Faqir Chand Gulati’s case. It is necessary to mention that the controversy involved in the case had arisen prior to the 2002 amendment by which the definition of the term “consumer” has been amended in the dictionary clause.

8. In Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. Kartick Das[2] the question that arose before a three-Judge Bench was whether the prospective investor in future goods could be treated as a consumer. Answering the question in favour of the appellant, the Court opined that a prospective investor like the respondent was not a consumer. However, a passage relating to the description of consumer from the said authority is worth reproducing:-

“The consumer as the term implies is one who consumes. As per the definition, consumer is the one who purchases goods for private use or consumption. The meaning of the word ‘consumer’ is broadly stated in the above definition so as to include anyone who consumes goods or services at the end of the chain of production. The comprehensive definition aims at covering every man who pays money as the price or cost of goods and services. The consumer deserves to get what he pays for in real quantity and true quality. In every society, consumer remains the centre of gravity of all business and industrial activity. He needs protection from the manufacturer, producer, supplier, wholesaler and retailer.”

(iii) A person who buys goods and uses them himself, exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood, by means of self-employment is within the definition of the expression ‘consumer’.”

13. It is necessary to state here that in the said case prior to recording its conclusions, the Court has elaborately dealt with the definition of “consumer” under Section 2(1)(d)(i) and Explanation added by 1993 amendment Act. Because of what we are going to ultimately say in this case, we think seemly to reproduce the relevant discussion from the said authority:-