K.K. Srivastava, President:
1. The appellant was the complainant before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum). The appellant applied for allotment of Booth Site for carrying his business of advertising agency, which is the only exclusive source of livelihood to the appellant. By means of self-employment of the appellant and he has no other source of employment or income.
2. The District Forum has dismissed the complaint on the ground that the appellant/complainant was not a consumer under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short hereinafter referred to as the C.P. Act) inasmuch as he was engaged in commercial activity. The explanation appended to Section 2(1)(d) clearly lays down as under:
âExplanationâFor the purpose of this clause, âcommercial purposeâ does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self employment.â
3. There is no material on record to show that the appellant was engaged in any other business other than the business of running of advertising agency. In the case of Laxmi Engineering Works v. P.S.G. Industrial Institute, II (1995) CPJ 1 (SC), the Honble Supreme Court held that even if such a complainant while engaging himself in running the business employs apart from himself one or two employees, still he would be covered under the explanation appended to Section 2(1)(d) of the C.P. Act. The Honble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (for short hereinafter referred to as the National Commission) had the occasion to consider this aspect in the light of the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court, in the case of M/s. Sakthi Engineering Works and Another v. M/s. Sri Krishna Coir Rope Industry rep. by Prop. P. Krishna Iyer, III (2000) CPJ 13 (NC)=1986-2002 Consumer 5262 (NS) and it was held inter alia as under:
âThe effect of this explanation is that even though a person who purchases goods for commercial purpose will not be a consumer within the meaning of the Act yet he will be treated as a consumer if the goods bought by him are used by him exclusively for the purpose of his earning livelihood by means of self-employment. The important words used in this explanation are âused by him exclusivelyâ, i.e., for the purpose of earning his livelihood and âby means of self-employment. ....â
4. We have no material on record and at least the leaned Govt. Pleader was unable to show to us that the complainant had any other source of livelihood other than this or that he had engaged besides himself employees more than two or lastly that the appellant was engaged in carrying on the business purely in supervisory capacity.
5. That being so, the District Forum, in our considered opinion, was in error in excluding the appellant/complainant from the definition of consumer. We hold that the appellant is a consumer under explanation appended to Section 2(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the C.P. Act. The impugned order is set aside. Since the merits of the case were not gone into by the District Forum, the complaint deserves to be remanded for decision on merit and according to law. The complaint is remanded to the District Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh to be decided on merit and according to law. The parties are directed to appear before the District Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh on 12.3.2004.
Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.