Purchaser of goods for Commercial Purpose is a ‘Consumer’ under Section 2 (1) (d) of COPRA, if he uses it himself for earning his livelihood

The Supreme Court observed that if the commercial use of goods is by the purchaser himself for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment, such purchaser of goods is a ‘consumer’.

The said ruling was held in the matter of Sunil Kohli vs. M/s. Purearth Infrastructure Ltd. (Civil Appeals 9004-9005 of 2018), decided on 01.10.2019.

Challenge

The present appeal under Section 23, Consumer Protection Act 1986 arose from the order of the National Commission which dismissed the complaint on the grounds of maintainability.

In the complaint, the complainants had averred that they wanted to dispose of the property in Denmark and wanted to come down to Delhi to start their own business and for this purpose, the premises in question were booked. The complaint was filed alleging that the opposite party has failed to deliver possession and for this purpose that the premises in question were booked. That the National Commission held that as the complainants had booked the commercial premises, it can be safely concluded that they had hired/availed of the services of the opposite party for commercial purpose and are not ‘consumer’ as envisaged under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act.

Held

Referring to Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Act and also the judgments in Laxmi Engineering Works v. P.S.G. Industrial Institute, (1995) 3 SCC 583 and Cheema Engineering Services v. Rajan Singh, (1997) 1 SCC 131, the bench observed that the explanation to Section 2(1)(d) of the Act clarifies that “in certain situations, purchase of goods for “commercial purpose” would not yet take the purchaser out of the definition of expression ‘consumer’.

It was further held that 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 a ‘consumer’ and what would constitute a “Commercial Purpose” is a question of fact to be decided in the facts of each case. Also, it was 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.

The affidavit of evidence as quoted above clearly points that the complainants wanted to dispose of the property in Denmark and wanted to come down to Delhi to start a business. It is for this purpose that the premises in question were booked. In the circumstances, it cannot be ruled that the case of the Complainants would not come within the definition of “consumer” as defined under the provisions of the Act.