Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. The State Commission held that the respondent is not covered under the expression “consumer” as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act, 1986 and held that the complainant being a company running a business from the premises to earn profits falls under the term “for commercial purpose” and the complaint is not maintainable under the provisions of the Act, 1986.

5. On an appeal being preferred by the respondent insured before the National Commission, the question arose as to whether the insurance policies taken by a commercial unit could be held to be hiring of services for commercial purpose and are hereby excluded from the provisions of the Act, 1986 after revisiting the provisions of the Act, 1986 and the definition of the terms “consumer” and “service” as defined under Section 2(1)(d) and 2(1)(o) of the Act, 1986, respectively the Commission recorded a finding that the expression used “for any commercial purpose” would mean that the goods purchased or services hired should be used in any activity directly intended to generate profit and profit is the main aim of commercial purpose, but in a case where goods purchased or services hired in an activity which is not intended to generate profit, it would not be a commercial purpose and held that a person who takes the policy of insurance to cover the envisaged risk, for indemnification of actual loss suffered is not ordinarily intended to generate profits and accordingly held that the respondent/complainant was a “consumer” under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act, 1986 and complaint filed at its instance is to be examined/decided by the State Commission on its own merits under the judgment impugned dated 3rd December, 2004, is a subject matter of challenge in appeal before this Court at the instance of the appellant insurance company.

24. The provisions of the Act, 1986 thus have to be construed in favour of the consumer to achieve the purpose of enactment as it is a social benefit­oriented legislation. The primary duty of the Court/Commission while construing the provisions of such an Act is to adopt a constructive approach subject to that it should not do violence to the language of the provisions and is not contrary to attempted objective of the enactment.

25. Section 2(1)(d) defines “consumer”, Section 2(1)(m) defines “a person” and Section 2(1)(o) defines “service”, which are relevant to examine the moot question raised for our consideration are reproduced hereunder:

29. This Court adverted to the concept of “consumer” as defined under the Act, analysing the definition in the context of the Act, in Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta3 held :

“3……It is in two parts. The first deals with goods and the other with services. Both parts first declare the meaning of goods and services by use of wide expressions. Their ambit is further enlarged by use of inclusive clause. For instance, it is not only purchaser of goods or hirer of services but even those who use the goods or who are beneficiaries of services with approval of the person who purchased the goods or who hired services are included in it. The legislature has taken precaution not only to define ‘complaint’, ‘complainant’, ‘consumer’ but even to mention in detail what would amount to unfair trade practice by giving an elaborate definition in clause (r) and even to define ‘defect’ and ‘deficiency’ by clauses (f) and (g) for which a consumer can approach the Commission. The Act thus aims to protect the economic interest of a consumer as understood in commercial sense as a purchaser of goods and in the larger sense of user of services. The common characteristics of goods and services are that they are supplied at a price to cover the costs and generate profit or income for the seller of goods or provider of services. But the defect in one and deficiency in other may have to be removed and compensated differently. The former is, normally, capable of being replaced and repaired whereas the other may be required to be compensated by award of the just equivalent of the value or damages for loss……”

6 (2022) 5 SCC 42

36. Thus, what is culled out is that there is no such exclusion from the definition of the term “consumer” either to a commercial enterprise or to a person who is covered under the expression “person” defined in Section 2(1)(m) of the Act, 1986 merely because it is a commercial enterprise. To the contrary, a firm whether registered or not is a person who can always invoke the jurisdiction of the Act, 1986 provided it falls within the scope and ambit of the expression “consumer” as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act, 1986.