Laxmi Engineering Works vs P.S.G. Industrial Institute on 4 April, 1995
10. We
have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful
consideration to the arguments advanced before us. Admittedly, the appellant/complainant had
purchased two trucks with the loan raised from the respondent/OP. The version given at the time of arguments
that the other vehicle was just lying idle, cannot be believed to be true. The appellant has not been able to show as to
how the purchase of two trucks does not fall within the meaning of commercial
transaction. The Honble Supreme Court
have observed in their order passed in Laxmi Engineering Works versus PSG
Industrial Institute [as reported in 1995 AIR SC 1428] that a person who
purchases an autoriksaw, a car or a lathe machine or other machine to be plied
or operated exclusively by any person could not be a consumer. In the present case, the
appellant/complainant has not been able to show, how he can qualify to come
under the definition of consumer under the Act when he has not given any
clarification about the use of operation of the other truck. The complaint, therefore, deserves to be
dismissed on this ground alone that the complainant does not fall within the definition
of consumer as per the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.