NDLI: Rohit Chaudhary & Anr. Vs. M/s Vipul Ltd.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	1986 Consumer Protection Act
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	Issue for consideration:The interpretation of the word and expression “CommercialPurpose” defined u/s. 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – ‘Commercial purpose’ – Notdefined in the Act – The Explanation (added by ConsumerProtection (Amendment) Act 50 of 1993:Held: The expression ‘commercial purpose’ has not beendefined under the Act – In the absence thereof one have to goby its ordinary meaning – ‘Commercial’ denotes “pertaining tocommerce”; it means ‘connected’ with or engaged in commerce;mercantile; “having profit as the main aim”; relate to or is connectedwith trade and traffic or commerce in general, is occupied withbusiness and commerce – The Explanation (added by ConsumerProtection (Amendment) Act 50 of 1993 (replacing Ordinance of24 of 1993 w.e.f. 18.06.1993) excludes certain purposes from thepurview of the expression ‘commercial purpose’ – The Explanationclarifies that even purchases in certain situations for ‘commercialpurposes’ would not take within its sweep the purchaser out ofthe definition of expression ‘consumer’ – In other words, if thecommercial use is by the purchaser himself for the purposeof earning his livelihood by means of self-employment, suchpurchaser of goods would continue to be a ‘consumer’. [Para 12]Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – “Commercial purpose”– To ascertain purchase for “commercial purpose” or not– Assertion made in the complaint important – Evidencetendered had to be evaluated – No straight jacket formulacan be adopted:Held: If the commercial use is by the purchaser himself for thepurpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment,such purchaser of goods would continue to be a ‘consumer’ – Whenthere is an assertion in the complaint filed before the ConsumerCourt or Commission that such goods are purchased for earninglivelihood, such complaint cannot be nipped at the bud anddismissed – Evidence tendered by parties will have to be evaluatedon the basis of pleadings and thereafter conclusion be arrived at –There cannot be any defined formula with mathematical precisionto examine the claims for non-suiting the complainant on accountof such complaint not falling within the definition of the expression‘consumer’ as defined u/s. 2(1)(d). [Para 12]Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – “Consumer” – Exclusionof persons buying goods either for resale or for use in largescale profit making activity from the definition of consumer– Intention of Parliament:Held: The Parliament has excluded from the scope of ‘Consumer’for igniting proceedings under the Act, a person who obtains goodsor services for re-sale or for any commercial purpose – Going bythe plain dictionary meaning of the words used in the definitionsection the intention of Parliament must be understood to be toexclude from the scope of the expression “consumer” any personwho buys goods for the purpose of their being used in any activityengaged on a large scale for the purpose of making profit – Thewords ‘for any commercial purpose’ must be understood as coveringthe cases other than those of resale of the goods – Thus, it isobvious, that Parliament intended to exclude from the scope ofdefinition not merely persons who obtain goods for resale but alsothose who purchase goods with a view to using such goods forcarrying on any activity on a large scale for the purpose of earningprofit – Thus, persons buying goods either for resale or for use inlarge scale profit making activity will not be a consumer entitledto protection under the Act, which would be a plain interpretationof this definition clause. [Para 11]Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – The NCDRC held thatcommercial space booked by the complainants cannot be saidto be for the purposes of earning livelihood by self-employmentor in other words the appellants are not consumers as definedu/s. 2(1)(d) of the Act – Propriety:Held: A perusal of the complaint filed before the Commission wouldindicate that appellants have specifically pleaded that they were insearch of office space “for their self-employment and to run theirbusiness and earn their livelihood” – In the statement recordedon oath by the Commission, while hearing the maintainability ofthe complaint, the first appellant has stated that he was earlierengaged in the business of caustic soda as a dealer of M/s.‘R’Industries and presently engaged in the business of investment/dealing in property – He has nowhere stated that he had proposedto purchase the office space from the respondent for the purposeof either selling the same for higher price or the said propertywas being purchased as an investment for being sold in future– The statement of the appellant was that he engaged in thebusiness of investment/dealing in property would not ipso factosuggest or indicate the property proposed to be purchased fromthe respondent was for commercial purpose – It is not in disputethat in all the respondent has received a sum of Rs.51,10,117/-from appellants – To balance the equities, respondent directedto refund the amount it has received from appellants with interestcalculated @ 12% per annum – Therefore, the order dated11.05.2015 passed by the NCDRC in consumer complaint setaside. [Paras 13, 16 and 17]
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat
Neutral Citation	2023 INSC 807
Petitioner	Rohit Chaudhary & Anr.
Respondent	M/s Vipul Ltd.
SCR	[2023] 14 S.C.R. 394
Judgement Date	2023-09-06
Case Number	5858

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Rohit Chaudhary & Anr. Vs. M/s Vipul Ltd.

Please Log-in to view this content

Indian Bank Vs. M/s. Satyam Fibres (india) Pvt. Ltd.

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. M/s. Hareshwar Enterprises (p) Ltd. & Ors.

M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ram Prakash Raturi

M/s. Fortune Infrastructure (now Known As M/s. Hicon Infrastructure) & Anr. Vs. Trevor D’lima & Ors.

Manmohan Nanda Vs. United India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr

M/s Suneja Towers Private Limited & Anr. Vs. Anita Merchant

M/s. Transport Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. M/s. Veljan Hydrair Ltd.

M/s. Ss Group Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aaditiya J. Garg & Anr.

M/s. Krishna Food & Baking Industry P. Ltd. Vs. M/s. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.

Rohit Chaudhary & Anr. Vs. M/s Vipul Ltd.

Rohit Chaudhary & Anr. Vs. M/s Vipul Ltd.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Indian Bank Vs. M/s. Satyam Fibres (india) Pvt. Ltd.

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. M/s. Hareshwar Enterprises (p) Ltd. & Ors.

M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ram Prakash Raturi

M/s. Fortune Infrastructure (now Known As M/s. Hicon Infrastructure) & Anr. Vs. Trevor D’lima & Ors.

Manmohan Nanda Vs. United India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr

M/s Suneja Towers Private Limited & Anr. Vs. Anita Merchant

M/s. Transport Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. M/s. Veljan Hydrair Ltd.

M/s. Ss Group Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aaditiya J. Garg & Anr.

M/s. Krishna Food & Baking Industry P. Ltd. Vs. M/s. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.

Rohit Chaudhary & Anr. Vs. M/s Vipul Ltd.