M/S. Harsolia Motors vs M/S. National Insurance Co. Ltd on 3 December, 2004
7. The first question involved, in this case, is that as to whether the
complainant is a consumer, firstly, in view of the allegation that they have
purchased the site for a commercial purpose and secondly, that it was
purchased in an open auction which excludes the purchaser from the
definition of a consumer. As regards the first ground, the complainant has
mentioned in para 3 of the complaint that the nursing home site was
purchased by her for earning her livelihood through self-employment. This
contention was opposed by the learned counsel for the OP alleging that she
is not the only person who would be employed there but she would run the
hospital to earn profits by employing a number of persons such as
compounders and other supporting staff. The fact that it would be run on
large scale is clear firstly because the area of the plot is 686 square yards and
had been purchased by the complainant for Rs.14 lacs as mentioned in the
allotment letter Ex.R7. In sub para 4 of para 7 of the complaint, she has
claimed compensation of Rs.10 lacs for the loss of income suffered by her
due to her inability to run the nursing home and she prayed for Rs.5 lacs as
compensation for escalation of construction cost. The magnitude of the
amount claimed as compensation also shows that the object of the nursing
home is not only self-employment but it is to earn profits on large scale.
Where the profit is a motive, we are of the opinion that the activity involves
commercial purpose as held in as "Harsolia Motors v. National Insurance
Co. Ltd., 2005 CTJ 141 (CP) (NCDRC)". The Hon'ble National
Commission held as under : -