M/S CHEEMA ENGINEERING SERVICES versus RAJAN SINGH

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 340 · Decided: 01-11-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
MIS CHEEMA ENGINEERING SERVICES 
v. 
RAJAN SINGH 
NOVEMBER 1, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAJK, JJ.] 
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 : 
S.2 (I) (d) Explanation-Purchase of machine for preparation of 
bricks-Whether for self-employment or for commercial purpose-Held: 
C Burden on the respondent to prove-Matter remitted to District Form for 
recording evidence and disposing of the matter within six months-
"Consumer"-Meaning of 
D 
Words & Phrases : 
"Consumer "-Meaning of in the context of Consumer Protection Act. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 14787 of 
1996. 
E 
From the Judgment and Order dated 6.5.96 of the National Consumers 
Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in R.P. No. 729 of 1995. 
C.S. Vaidyanathan, Rajan K. Sharma, Rakesh K. Sharma and 
Ms. Shalu Sharma for the Appellant. 
F 
B. Parthasarthy for the Respondent. 
The following Orders of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
G 
We have heard learned counsel on both sides. 
The only question for consideration is : whether the respondent has 
been using the machine "Brickman" for clay preparation, brick moulding, 
brick drying and brick burning, after purchasing the same from the 
H appellant for earning his livelihood within the meaning of Explanation to 
340 
CHEEMA ENGG. SERVICES v. RAJAN SINGH 
341 
Section 2 (I) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986? Section 2 (1) (d) A 
reads as under : 
"Consumer" means any person who: 
(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid er 
promised or partly promised, or under any system of deferred B 
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 
C 
(ii) hires 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 the services for 
consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly D 
promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such 
services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned 
person." 
If any goods are purchased for consideration, paid or promised or E 
partly paid or under any system of deferred payment including any user of 
such goods other than the person who by such goods for the 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 the purchaser is the 'consumer' with the meaning of the Act. But 
the Act provides for certain exceptions, namely, "does not include a person F 
who obtains such goods for resale or any commercial purpose; or .. " 
The Explanation to the definition of 'consumer' has been added by 
way of an amendment in 1993 which reads as under :-
"Explanation-for the purpose of sub-clause (i) "commercial G 
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." 
In other words, the Explanation excludes from the ambit of H 
342 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 
A commercial purpose in sub-clause (i) of Section 2( 1) ( d), any goods 
purchased by a consumer and used by him exclusively for the purpose of 
earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. Such purchase of 
goods is not a commercial purpose. The question, therefore, is: whether 
the respondent has been using the aforesaid machine for self-employment? 
The word 'self-employment' is not defined. Therefore, it is a matter of 
B evidence. Unless there is evidence and on consideration thereof it is 
concluded that the machine was used only for self-employment to earn his 
livelihood without a sense of commercial purpose by employing on regular 
basis the employee or workmen for trade in the manufacture and sale of 
bricks, it would be for self-employment. Manufacture and sale of bricks 
in a commercial way may also be to earn livelihood, but "merely earning 
C livelihood in commercial business", does not mean that it is not for 
commercial purpose. Self-employment connotes altogether a different 
concept, namely, he alone uses the machinery purchased for the

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.