LexMADAN KUMAR SINGH (D) THR. LRS. versus DISTT. MAGISTRATE, SULTANPUR & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 12 S.C.R. 1186 A MADAN KUMAR SINGH (0) THR. LRS. V. DISTI. MAGISTRATE, SULTANPUR & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 5165 of 2009) B AUGUST 07, 2009 [S.B. SINHA AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ.] Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - ss.2(1)(d),(g) & (o) and 12 - Consumer- Deficiency in service - Claim for damages t c - Truck purchased in auction sale - Respondents authorities delayed delivery of the truck to appellant-auction purchaser and also, despite efforts made by him, did not hand over - necessary papers of the truck to him for long number of years - Appellant could not ply the truck for such long number of D years - Petition by appellant uls. 12 claiming damages - Held: Buyers of goods/commodities for "self consumption" in economic activities in which they are engaged would be consumers as defined in the Act - Appellant was 'consumer' within meaning of s.2(1)(d) as he purchased the truck for E earning his livelihood by means of self-employment - Conduct, behaviour and attitude of respondents was highly reprehensible - There was deficiency in services on their part - Rs. 1 lakh with 6% interest p.a. directed to be paid by respondents jointly or severally to the appellant. F A truck was put in auction sale, on account of default in payment of instalments by its previous owner towards the loan taken by him from bank. Bid of the appellant was the highest. In 1999, the auction was confirmed and treated to be a final sale in favour of the appellant. G Appellant deposited the requisite money consideration, however, the respondents authorities handed over the truck in question to the appellant only after six months from the date of auction. Even after getting delivery of the truck, the appellant could not start plying the same as he H 1186 MADAN KUMAR SINGH (D) THR. LRS. v. DISTI. 1187 MAGISTRATE, SULTANPUR was not delivered the relevant papers thereof for long A number of years despite efforts made by him. The relevant papers of the truck were handed over to the appellant six years after the date of auction. Meanwhile, the appellant filed petition Section 12 of 8 the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 claiming damages. The appellant claimed damages @ Rs.500/- per day and interest at 5% on the amount of Rs.70,000/- deposited by him for the price of the truck and in addition, further claimed damages for mental and social injuries to the tune C of Rs.50,000/- plus litigation expenses. The questions which arise for consideration in the present appeals were (i) whether the appellant was a 'consumer' within the definition of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act; and (ii) whether there was deficiency in services D committed by respondents as contemplated under Section 2(1)(g) of the Act. Disposing of the appeals, the Court HELD:1. Appellant would be deemed to be a E consumer within the definition as contained in Section 2(1 )(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. A plain reading of Section 2(1) (d) of the Act makes it abundantly clear that appellant would fall in the category of a 'consumer' as he had bought the truck for a consideration F which was paid by him. It was bought to be used exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. A further reading of the aforesaid definition of 'consumer' makes it clear that Parliament wanted to exclude from the scope of the G definition the persons, who obtain goods for resale and also those who purchase goods with a view to use such goods for carrying on any activity for earning. The immediate purpose as distinct from the ultimate purpose of purchase, sale in the same form or after conversion H 1188 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 12 S.C.R. A and a direct nexus with profit or loss would be the determinants of the character of a transaction-whether it is for a "commercial purpose" or not. Thus, buyers of goods or commodities for "self consumption" in economic activities in which they are engaged would be B consumers as defined in the Act. The purchase of the truck by the appellant would also be covered under explanation to Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. The appellant had mentioned categorically that he had bought the said t.ruck to be used exclusively by him for the purpose of c earning his livelihood, by means of self-employment. Even if he was to employ a driver for running the truck aforesaid, it would not have changed the matter in any case, as even then appellant would have continued to earn h
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.