Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

18.       In Rajeev Metal Works and Others v. Mineral & Metal Trading Corporation of India Ltd. (1996) 9 SCC 422, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed thus :-

"6.       Having given our anxious and very careful consideration to the respective contentions, the question emerges whether the appellant firm is a consumer.  The word 'consumer' has been defined under Section 2(1)(d)(i) and (ii) thus :

"(d) 'consumer' means any person who, -

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 obtain such goods  for resale or for any commercial purpose; or hires or avails of any services 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 beneficiary  of such services other than the person who hires or avails of the services for  consideration paid or promised, or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of  the first mentioned person."

7.         Clause (i) provides that one who 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 promise, 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, is a consumer.  The admitted case is that this does not apply.  The question, therefore, is whether the service of the respondent availed by the appellants is covered under Section 2(1)(d)(ii)?  Whether the transaction in the nature of  buying the goods for a consideration which has been  paid or promised?  Whether the transaction in question excludes the person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose from the purview of the Act?  It is true as contended for the  appellants that the definition requires to be interpreted broadly so as to give  effect to the legislative intention envisaged under the Act.  But when the  legislature having  defined the term 'consumer' in broader terms, sought to exclude certain transactions from the purview of the Act what could be the  meaning that would be assigned to the exclusionary clause, viz., "but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose".  The intention appears to be that when the goods are exchanged between a buyer and the seller for commercial purpose or for resale, the object  of the Act appears to be  to exclude such commercial transactions from the purview of  the Act.  Instead, legislature intended to confine the redressal to the services contracted or undertaken between the seller and the 'consumer' defined under the Act.  It is seen that the appellants admittedly entered their letters of credit with the respondent.  The respondent is a statutory authority to  act as canalised agency on behalf of the industries to procure required  goods on their behalf from the foreign seller and acts in that behalf in terms of the letter of  credit and conditions enumerated thereunder.  It is seen that the respondent did not undertake any direct responsibility for supply or liability for non-supply of the goods.  On the other hand, the appellants had solicited to have the goods supplied to it through the respondent and opened letter of credit in favour of the  respondent.  After collecting requirement from various industries in the country admittedly  a consolidated demand for supply of the required quantity of the G.P. Sheets was indented with foreign sellers so as to procure the required goods for onward supply to the appellant and others.  The goods supplied were required for commercial purpose, i.e., for  manufacture and resale as finished goods during the course of their commercial business.  Under the circumstances, the appellants intended to purchase these goods for commercial purpose, namely to manufacture the tin sheets for resale.  It is true that the word 'resale' used in the exclusionary clause of Section 2(1)(d) (i) was used in connection with the purchase of goods defined in the Sale of Goods Act for commercial purpose  The ultimate object of the supply  of the goods, namely, G.P. sheets to the  appellants was manufacture of finished goods for resale.  The goods were intended to be used for commercial purpose.  Thus, considered,  we are of the opinion that the appellants are not consumers by virtue of the exclusionary  clause  under Section 2(1)(d)(ii).  Therefore, they would not come under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of  the Act.  Since the object of the supply and purchase of the goods was commercial purpose, it would certainly come within the exclusionary clause of Section 2(1)(d)(ii).  Otherwise, if the construction sought to be  put up by  Mr. Sanghi is given effect to, while foreign sellers are not  liable under the Act within the definition of Section 2(1)(d) as they get excluded from the purview of the Act, the canalising agency would be fastened with the liability.  Thereby, the definition of the word 'consumer' under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) is not  attracted.

"12.     Now coming back to the definition of  the expression 'consumer' in Section 2(d), a consumer means in so far as is relevant for the purpose of this appeal, (i) a person who buys any goods for consideration; it is immaterial whether the consideration is paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or whether the payment of consideration is deferred; (ii) a person who uses such goods with the approval of the person who buys such goods for consideration; (iii) but does not include a person who buys such goods for resale or for any commercial 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 absence of a definition, we have to go by its ordinary meaning.  'Commercial' denotes "pertaining to commerce" (Chamber's Twentieth Century); it means "connected with, or engaged in commerce; mercantile; having profit as the main aim" (Collins English Dictionary)  whereas the word 'commerce' means "financial transactions especially buying and selling of merchandise, on a large scale" (Concise Oxford Dictionary). The National Commission appears to have been taken 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 'consumer' within the meaning of Section 2(d)(i) of the Act.  Broadly affirming the said view and more particularly, with a view to  obviate any confusion - the expression 'large scale' is not a very precise expression - Parliament stepped in and added the explanation to Section 2(1)(d) by Ordinance / Amendment Act, 1993.  The explanation excludes certain purposes from the purview of the expression 'commercial purpose' - a case of exception to  an exception.  Let us elaborate : a person who buys a typewriter or a car and uses them for his personal use is certainly a 'consumer' but a person who buys a typewriter or a car for typing others' work, for consideration  or for plying the car as a 'taxi', can be said to be using the typewriter / car for a  commercial purpose.  The explanation however clarifies that in certain situations, purchase of goods for 'commercial purpose' would not yet take the purchaser out of the definition of expression of expression 'consumer'.  If the commercial use is by the purchaser himself for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of 'self employment', such purchaser of goods is yet a 'consumer'.  In the illustration given above, if the purchaser himself works on  typewriter or plies the car as a taxi himself, , he does not cease to be a consumer.  In other words, if the buyer of goods uses them himself, i.e. by self-employment, for earning his livelihood, it would not be treated as a 'commercial purpose' and he does  not cease to be  a consumer for  the purposes of the Act.  The explanation reduces the  question, what is a 'commercial purpose', to a question of fact to be decided in the facts of each case.  It is not the value of the goods that matters but the purpose to which the goods bought are put to.  The several words employed in the explanation, viz., 'uses them by himself ', 'exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood ' and 'by means of self-employment' make the intention of Parliament abundantly clear, that the goods bought must be used by the buyer himself by employing himself for earning his livelihood.  A few more illustrations would serve to emphasise what we say.  A person who purchases an auto-rickshaw to ply it himself on hire for earning his livelihood would be a consumer.  Similarly, a purchaser of  a truck who purchases it for plying it as a public carrier by himself  would be a consumer.  A person who purchases a lathe machine or other machine to operate it himself for earning his livelihood  would be a consumer.  (In the above illustrations, 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 consumer).  As against  this, a person who purchases an auto-rickshaw, a car or a lathe machine or other machine to be plied or operated exclusively by another person, would not be a consumer.  This is necessary limitation flowing from the expressions "used by him" and "by means of self-employment in the explanation.  The ambiguity in the meaning of the words "for the purpose of earning his livelihood" is explained and clarified by the other two sets of words".