Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

10.     In order to find answer to the issue of maintainability, it would be useful to have a look on definition of "consumer" as envisaged in Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which reads as under:

(d) "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

14.     The complainants had participated in the auction for purchase of plot on "as is where is basis" and there being no element of service promised by the opposite party, the complainants cannot be termed as "Consumers" because in order to qualify under that definition, the complainants are required to show that they had hired or availed of any services in respect of subject plot which they have miserably failed.

15.     Coming to the second limb of the argument, learned counsel for the opposite party has taken me through the definition of Consumer as envisaged under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and submitted that on plain reading of the aforesaid definition it would be seen that the definition itself carves out an inbuilt exception of the effect that if the services of the opposite party are hired or availed for commercial purpose then the hirer of the service would not fall within the definition of the "consumer".  On the contrary, it is argued by learned counsel for the opposite party that perusal of the complaint would show that as per the admission of the complainants the subject plot is a shop-cum-office plot and not only this the complainants in their prayer clause have claimed compensation of Rs.4 lakhs per month on account of loss of business which clearly indicates that the complainants participated in the auction for plot in question with the intention to use it for commercial purpose. Thus, it is submitted that the complainants do not fall within the definition of consumer.

16.     Learned counsel for the complainants has contended that no doubt that the complainants had given bid for a commercial plot with the intention to use it for commercial purpose but they are covered under Explanation to Section 2 (1) (d), which gives restricted meaning to the term "Commercial Purpose" in respect of definition of "consumer". In support of this contention, learned counsel has drawn my attention to para 2 of the complaint wherein it is alleged that the complainants had purchased the property and availed of service of the opposite party for the purpose of earning livelihood by means of self-employment, livelihood of Directors and substantial shareholders. Admittedly, allottee in this case is complainant No.2 company which is registered under the Companies Act. The company no doubt is a "person" but it is an unnatural person. Therefore, it is clear that the company could not have hired or availed of the services of the opposite party for earning livelihood. The term "livelihood" used in the explanation pre-supposes that it is applicable only to the natural person. Therefore, in my view, the explanation also is of no avail to the complainants and they are not the consumers as defined under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act.

14.     The complainants had participated in the auction for purchase of plot on "as is where is basis" and there being no element of service promised by the opposite party, the complainants cannot be termed as "Consumers" because in order to qualify under that definition, the complainants are required to show that they had hired or availed of any services in respect of subject plot which they have miserably failed.

15.     Coming to the second limb of the argument, learned counsel for the opposite party has taken me through the definition of Consumer as envisaged under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and submitted that on plain reading of the aforesaid definition it would be seen that the definition itself carves out an inbuilt exception of the effect that if the services of the opposite party are hired or availed for commercial purpose then the hirer of the service would not fall within the definition of the "consumer".  On the contrary, it is argued by learned counsel for the opposite party that perusal of the complaint would show that as per the admission of the complainants the subject plot is a shop-cum-office plot and not only this the complainants in their prayer clause have claimed compensation of Rs.4 lakhs per month on account of loss of business which clearly indicates that the complainants participated in the auction for plot in question with the intention to use it for commercial purpose. Thus, it is submitted that the complainants do not fall within the definition of consumer.