Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

27. The legislature noticed various deficiencies and inadequacies in the said Act. Therefore, in order to plug these loopholes and enlarge the scope of areas covered, the legislature brought certain amendments to the said Act by the Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as “1993 Amendment Act”). One of the objects of the said Act was to enable the consumers, who are self­ employed, to file complaints before the redressal agencies, where goods bought by them exclusively for earning their livelihood, suffer from any defect. By sub­section (5) of Section 2 of the 1993 Amendment Act, the following amendments were effected to the definition of the term ‘consumer’:

29. The legislature further noticed several bottlenecks and shortcomings in the implementation of various provisions of the said Act and with a view to achieve quicker disposal of consumer complaints, and to make the said Act more effective by removing various lacunae, the legislature amended the said Act by the Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as “the 2002 Amendment Act”). One of the objects for bringing out the 2002 Amendment Act was “exclusion of services availed for commercial purposes from the purview of the consumer disputes redressal agencies”. It could thus be seen that the legislature noticed the mischief, that though Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the said Act kept out of its purview the goods purchased for commercial purpose, the said restriction was not found in Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the said Act. As such, in order to bring Section 2(1)(d)(ii) at par with Section 2(1)(d)(i), the following amendment was effected to in clause (d):

34. In the case of Laxmi Engineering Works (supra), this Court, while considering the scope of the definition of the expression ‘consumer’ with relation to Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the said Act and the Explanation added by 1993 Amendment Act, observed thus:

“11. Now coming back to the definition of the expression ‘consumer’ in Section 2(d), a consumer means insofar as is relevant for the purpose of this appeal, (i) a person who buys any goods for consideration; it is im­ material whether the consideration is paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or whether the payment of con­ sideration is deferred; (ii) a person who uses such goods with the approval of the person who buys such goods for considera­ tion; (iii) but does not include a person who buys such goods for resale or for any com­ mercial purpose. The expression ‘resale’ is clear enough. Controversy has, however, arisen with respect to meaning of the expression “commercial purpose”. It is also not defined in the Act. In the ab­ sence of a definition, we have to go by its ordinary meaning. ‘Commercial’ de­ notes “pertaining to commerce” (Cham­ ber's Twentieth Century Dictionary); it means “connected with, or engaged in commerce; mercantile; having profit as the main aim” (Collins English Dictio­ nary) whereas the word ‘commerce’ means “financial transactions espe­ cially buying and selling of merchan­ dise, on a large scale” (Concise Oxford Dictionary). The National Commission ap­ pears to have been taking a consistent view that where a person purchases goods “with a view to using such goods for carrying on any activity on a large scale for the purpose of earning profit” he will not be a ‘con­ sumer’ within the meaning of Section 2(d)(i) of the Act. Broadly affirming the said view and more particularly with a view to obvi­ ate any confusion — the expression “large scale” is not a very precise expression — Parliament stepped in and added the explanation to Section 2(d)(i) by Ordi­ nance/Amendment Act, 1993. The ex­ planation excludes certain purposes from the purview of the expression “commercial purpose” — a case of ex­ ception to an exception. Let us elaborate: