2 , [1995 ]84 CompCas121 (SC ), (1995 )2 CompLJ393 (SC ), (1995 )2 CompLJ393 (SC ), 2 (1995 )CPJ1 (SC ), II (1995 )CPJ1 (SC ), 1995 (2 ) CPR 11 (SC ), 1995 INSC 248 , JT1995 (3 )SC 433 , 1995 (2 )SCALE626 , (1995 )3 SCC583 , [1995 ]3 SCR174 , 1995 (2 )UJ253 , ,MANU/SC/0271/1995
B.P. Jeevan Reddy#S.V. Manohar#2565SC3250Judgment/OrderAIR#C.P.C.#CompCas#CompLJ#CompLJ#CPJ#CPJ#CPR#INSC#JT#MANU#SCALE#SCC#SCR#UJB.P. Jeevan Reddy,SUPREME COURT OF INDIA2012-9-24No Proceedings Complying with the Procedure Laid Down in Section 13 of the CP Act shall be Questioned in any Court,Procedure on admission of complaint,Consumer Disputes Redressal Agencies,Goods,Definitions,Subject and Scope,Person,Definitions,Subject and Scope,Unfair Trade Practice,Definitions,Subject and Scope,General,Definitions,Subject and Scope,Condition for Establishment,Consumer Protection Councils,District Forum, State Commission and National Commission,Definitions,Subject and Scope,Illustrative cases,Liberal Construction of Remedial Statutes,Remedial and Penal Statutes,Cases of nullity,The Extent Of Exclusion,Statutes Affecting Jurisdiction of Courts,Application of the CP Act,Short title, extent, commencement and application,Statutory Description,Consumer,Definitions,Subject and Scope,General,Procedure on admission of complaint,Consumer Disputes Redressal Agencies,Finality of Order if no Appeal Preferred,Finality of orders,Consumer Disputes Redressal Agencies,Consumer Law,Interpretation of Statutes2726,2727,2737,20183,20186,20188,20189,20190,20192,20196,20195,20197,2751,2759,2741,2748,26912 -->
MANU/SC/0271/1995
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Civil Appeal No. 4193 of 1995
Decided On: 04.04.1995
Appellants: Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. Respondent: P.S.G. Industrial Institute
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
B.P. Jeevan Reddy and S.V. Manohar ORDER
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The definition of the expression "consumer" in Clause (d) of Section 2 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 excludes from its purview "a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose". The question that arises in this appeal is what is the meaning and ambit of the expression "any commercial purpose" in the said definition. By Ordinance 24 of 1993 (which has since been replaced by Amendment Act 50 of 1993) an explanation has been added to the definition of the expression "consumer" with effect from 18.6.1993. The explanation reads: "For the purposes of Sub-Clause (i) "commercial purpose" does not include use by a consumer of goods bought and used by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood, by means of self-employment". The complaint herein was, however, made before the adding of the said explanation. It would be appropriate to read the definition at this stage.
(d) "consumer" means any person who, -
(i) 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 obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or
(ii) [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