ROHIT CHAUDHARY & ANR. versus M/S VIPUL LTD.

Citation: [2023] 14 S.C.R. 394 · Decided: 06-09-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAVINDRA BHAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 14 S.C.R. 394 : 2023 INSC 807
394
CASE DETAILS
ROHIT CHAUDHARY & ANR.
v. 
M/S VIPUL LTD. 
(Civil Appeal No. 5858 of 2015)
SEPTEMBER 06, 2023 
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND ARAVIND KUMAR, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: The interpretation of the word and expression 
“Commercial Purpose” defi ned u/s. 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection 
Act, 1986.
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – ‘Commercial purpose’ – Not 
defi ned in the Act – The Explanation (added by Consumer Protection 
(Amendment) Act 50 of 1993:
Held: The expression ‘commercial purpose’ has not been defi ned under 
the Act – In the absence thereof one have to go by its ordinary meaning 
– ‘Commercial’ denotes “pertaining to commerce”; it means ‘connected’ 
with or engaged in commerce; mercantile; “having profi t as the main aim”; 
relate to or is connected with trade and traffi  c or commerce in general, 
is occupied with business and commerce – The Explanation (added by 
Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act 50 of 1993 (replacing Ordinance of 
24 of 1993 w.e.f. 18.06.1993) excludes certain purposes from the purview of 
the expression ‘commercial purpose’ – The Explanation clarifi es that even 
purchases in certain situations for ‘commercial purposes’ would not take 
within its sweep the purchaser out of the defi nition of expression ‘consumer’ 
– In other words, if the commercial use is by the purchaser himself for 
the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment, such 
purchaser 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 – Evidence tendered had to be evaluated – 
No straight jacket formula can be adopted:
395
Held: If the commercial use is by the purchaser himself for the purpose 
of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment, such purchaser of 
goods would continue to be a ‘consumer’ – When there is an assertion in the 
complaint fi led before the Consumer Court or Commission that such goods 
are purchased for earning livelihood, such complaint cannot be nipped at the 
bud and dismissed – Evidence tendered by parties will have to be evaluated 
on the basis of pleadings and thereafter conclusion be arrived at – There 
cannot be any defi ned formula with mathematical precision to examine the 
claims for non-suiting the complainant on account of such complaint not 
falling within the defi nition of the expression ‘consumer’ as defi ned u/s. 
2(1)(d). [Para 12] 
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – “Consumer” – Exclusion 
of persons buying goods either for resale or for use in large scale 
profi t making activity from the defi nition 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 goods or 
services for re-sale or for any commercial purpose – Going by the plain 
dictionary meaning of the words used in the defi nition section the intention 
of Parliament must be understood to be to exclude from the scope of the 
expression “consumer” any person who buys goods for the purpose of 
their being used in any activity engaged on a large scale for the purpose of 
making profi t – The words ‘for any commercial purpose’ must be understood 
as covering the cases other than those of resale of the goods – Thus, it is 
obvious, that Parliament intended to exclude from the scope of defi nition 
not merely persons who obtain goods for resale but also those who purchase 
goods with a view to using such goods for carrying on any activity on a 
large scale for the purpose of earning profi t – Thus, persons buying goods 
either for resale or for use in large scale profi t making activity will not be 
a consumer entitled to protection under the Act, which would be a plain 
interpretation of this defi nition clause. [Para 11]
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – The NCDRC held that 
commercial space booked by the complainants cannot be said to be 
for the purposes of earning livelihood by self-employment or in other 
ROHIT CHAUDHARY & ANR. v. M/S VIPUL LTD. 
396 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 14 S.C.R.
words the appellants are not consumers as defi ned u/s. 2(1)(d) of the 
Act – Propriety:
Held: A perusal of the complaint fi led before the Commission would 
indicate that appellants have specifi cally pleaded that they were in search of 
offi  ce space “for their self-employment and to run their business and earn 

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