KALPAVRUKSHA CHARITABLE TRUST versus TOSHNIWAL BROTHERS (BOMBAY) PVT. LTD. AND ANR.

Citation: [1999] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 619 · Decided: 12-10-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. SAGHIR AHMAD
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

KALPAVRUKSHA CHARITABLE TRUST 
A 
v 
TOSHNIWAL BROTHERS (BOMBAY) PVT. LTD. AND ANR. 
OCTOBER 12, 1999 
[S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.] 
B 
Consumer Protection Act, 1986: Section 2(1)(d)(i). 
Consumer--Who is-Expression 'Commercial purpose'-Scope and 
meaning of-Diagnostic Centre nm by Appellant Trust-CT Scan Machine 
C 
used by Centre-Patients required to pay for use of m~chine--Only ten per 
cent patients provided free service-Held machine purchased by Trust was 
meant for 'Commercial purpose'-Appellant-Trust held not a consumer. 
The Appellant-Trust was running a Diagnostic Centre. It purchased 
a CT Scan Machine for use of which patients were paying fee. Only ten per D 
cent of the patients were being provided free service. On the question 
whether the appellant was a 'Consumer' under the Consumer Protection 
Act, 1986, the National Commission held that the Appellant was not a 
'Consumer' as the machinery was installed for 'Commercial Purpose'. The 
Appellant-Trust preferred appeal before this Court. 
E 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : In spite of the Commercial activity, whether a person would 
fall within the definition of "consumer" or not would be a question of fact 
in every case. Every patient referred to the Diagnostic Centre of the appel-
F 
I ant and who takes advantage of the CT Scan etc., has to pay for it and the 
service rendered by the appellant is not free. Only ten percent of the 
patients are provided free service. That being so, the "goods" (machinery) 
which were obtained by the appellant were being used for 'commercial 
purpose'. The appellant-Trust is not a consumer.[622-F;.G; HJ 
G 
Laxmi Engineering Works v. P.S.G. lndustriai Institute, [1995] 3 SCC 
583, explained and held inapplicable. 
Addi. Commissioner of lncome Tax, Gujarat Y. Surat Art Silk Cloth 
Manufacturers Association, (1980) 121 ITR 1 and Commissioner of income H 
619 
620 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A Tax, New Delhi v. Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce & Industries, 
New Delhi,,(1981) 3 SCR 489, held inapplicable. 
B 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 9737 of 
1996. 
In 
Inteilocutory Application No. 2. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.7.94 of the National 
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi in O.P. No. 96 of 
c 1993. 
S.P. Mithal, · R.N. Keswani, Ms. Chandrakanta Nayak and Ramlal 
Roy for the Appellant. 
S.C. Agrawala, Ms. Nina Gupta, Ms. Arpita R. Choudhary, Sanjay 
D Choudhary, Vineet Kumar, for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
S. SAGHIR AHMAD, J. This appeal was disposed of by us by our 
E judgment dated 12th August, 1999. 
Mr. R.N. Keswani, appearing on behalf of the appellant, has filed the 
instant Application stating that he was the only counsel appearing on behalf 
of the appellant on 12.8.1999, but since he was busy in some other Court 
when the matter was taken up by us, he could not come and argue the 
F appeal. He also stated that the counsel who was deputed to make a 
mention that he (Mr. R.N. Keswani) was busy in some other Court was not 
entitled to argue the appeal. 
The appeal was heard by us in detail and elaborate arguments were 
G made on behalf of the appellant also, but having regard to the fact that Mr. 
Keswani was the only counsel in the appeal and he has stated that the other 
counsel was not entitled to argue the appeal, we have heard Mr. Keswani 
as also Mr. S.P.Mithal. 
The main reliance on behalf of the appellant has been placed on the 
H decision of this Court in Laxmi Engineering Works v. P.S.G. Industrial 
-
KALP A VRUKSHA CHARITABLE TRUST v. TOSHNIWAL BROS. [S. SAGHIR AHMAD, J.] 621 
Institute, (1995) 3 sec 583 in support of the contention that the appellant A 
was a "consumer" within the meaning of the definition set out in the 
Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The definition was considered by us and 
it was held that since the machinery in question was installed by the 
appellant for commercial purpose, it would not be a "consumer". 
It is contended by the counsel for the appellant that the term 
"commercial purpose" has been considered by this Court in the case of 
Laxmi Engineering Works (supra) and the observation of National 
Commission that "commercial purpose" would mean "profit-making 
activity on a large scale" was approved and, 'therefore, the activity of the 
present appellant would not be a commercial activity as no "profit-making 
on a large scale" is involved. We do not agree. T
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.