Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. Against the order of the District Forum, the respondents filed First Appeal No. 1360/2011 before the State Commission, Jaipur. The State Commission, after hearing the parties, confirmed the order of the District Forum vide Order dated 08.08.2011 holding that it did not find any error or illegality in the direction issued by the District Forum.

6. The correctness of the order of the State Commission was questioned by the respondents herein before the National Commission in Revision Petition No. 2855/2011. The correctness of the findings and reasons recorded by the District Forum, in its judgment were questioned including the maintainability of the complaint filed by the appellant herein by placing strong reliance upon the definition of Consumer as defined under Section 2(i)(d) of the Act and decision of this Court in U.T. Chandigarh Administration & Anr. vs. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. (2009) 4 SCC 660 contending that this Court has held that a person who had purchased the plot in public auction would not fall within the definition of 'Consumer' as defined in Section 2(i)(d) of the Act.

7. The National Commission after issuance of the notice to the appellant, placed him ex parte since the appellant did not turn up before the National Commission and heard the respondents herein and after extracting Paragraphs 20 and 21 from the decision of the U.T.Chandigarh Administration (supra) held that the appellant herein had purchased the commercial plot for a commercial purpose and the complaint filed by him would not be sustainable for the person who buys any goods or avails of any service for a commercial purpose is excluded from the definition of the 'Consumer' as defined in Section 2(i)(d) of the Act and allowed the revision petition by setting aside the orders of State Commission and District Forum holding that the complaint filed by the appellant herein is not maintainable. However, the liberty was reserved to the appellant to seek redressal of his grievance from any other appropriate forum along with an application under Section 14 read with Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 to exclude the time spent in the Consumer Forum, while calculating the limitation in the light of the observations of the Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works vs. PSG Industrial Institute reported in (1995) 3 SCC 583.

8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant herein contended that the National Commission erred in holding that the transaction between the appellant and the respondents does not come under the purview of the Act as it is a commercial transaction and, therefore, the appellant is not a consumer as defined under Section 2(i)(d) of the Act. Further, it is urged that the commercial transaction done for earning livelihood does not exclude in the definition of a consumer as held by this Court in the case of Madan Kumar Singh vs. District Magistrate & Ors. reported in (2009) 9 SCC 179 and further it is contended that the National Commission committed an error in law holding that non-declaration of pending legal proceeding in relation to the plot in question does not amount to deficiency in service under the Act, therefore, the findings and reasons recorded by the District Forum in its judgment is affirmed by the State Commission was perfectly legal and valid and the same did not warrant interference by the National Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Further, learned Counsel for the appellant placed reliance upon another decision of this Court in the case of National Seeds Corporation Ltd. vs. M. Madhusudan Reddy reported in (2012) 2 SCC 506, wherein this Court has held that if any person who is earning his livelihood by self-employment and has entered into commercial transaction, is a consumer within the definition of the Act. In view of the aforesaid decision, the ratio laid down in the case of U.T. Chandigarh Administration (supra) upon which much reliance is placed by the National Commission to set aside the orders of the District Forum and also the State Commission, thereby the impugned order is vitiated in law as the purchase of plot by the appellant in public auction is for the purpose of earning the livelihood by self-employment by the appellant herein. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the National Commission is unsustainable in law.

12. In view of the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the interpretation made by the National Commission with regard to the definition of 'Consumer' that who purchased the plot in public auction is for commercial purpose, without there being any material in this regard and accepting the plea of the appellant herein that he had purchased the plot for the purpose of earning his livelihood as he is an unemployed person. This very important aspect of the matter to exclude him from the definition of the 'Consumer' is not considered by the NCDRC. The reliance placed upon two decisions of this Court, namely, Madan Kumar Singh (supra) and National Seeds Corporation, Ltd. (supra) are applicable to the present situation and further having regard to the undisputed fact brought to our notice by the learned counsel for the respondents that the subject matter of the plot in question is under litigation, therefore, after the public auction of the property, there is litigation pending, the respondents could not have concluded the contract by confirming the sale and forfeiture of the 25% of the sale consideration amount and Rs. 25,000/- towards security deposit is wholly unjust and amounts to unlawful enrichment in favour of the respondents.