SHRIKANT G. MANTRI versus PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

Citation: [2022] 5 S.C.R. 945 · Decided: 22-02-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L. NAGESWARA RAO · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
945
SHRIKANT G. MANTRI
v.
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK
(Civil Appeal No. 11397 of 2016)
FEBRUARY 22, 2022
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND B. R. GAVAI, JJ.]
Consumer Protection Act, 1986: ss. 2(1)(d), 2(1)(d)(i),
2(1)(d)(ii) – Appellant was a stock-broker by profession – He was
also acting as stock broker for respondent bank – Appellant took
overdraft facility from respondent-bank and also sought
enhancement of the same from time to time in furtherance of his
business as stock broker and for enhancing profit – Whether the
appellant had availed the services of the respondent for ‘commercial
purpose’ and therefore  he was not a consumer as envisaged under
s.2(1)(d) of the Act – Held: Ordinarily, “commercial purpose” is
understood to include manufacturing /industrial activity or
business-to-business transactions between commercial entities and
that the purchase of the good or service should have a close and
direct nexus with a profit-generating activity – What is relevant is
the dominant intention or dominant purpose for the transaction and
as to whether the same was to facilitate some kind of profit
generation for the purchaser and/or their beneficiary – The relations
between the appellant and the respondent was purely “business to
business” relationship – The transactions would clearly come within
the ambit of ‘commercial  purpose’ – Therefore, it cannot be said
that the services were availed exclusively  for the purposes of
earning his livelihood by means of self-employment – Appellant was
not consumer under s.2(1)(d) of the Act.
Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act, 1993: Object of the
Amendment Act – Held: To enable the consumers, who are self-
employed, to file complaints before the redressal agencies, where
goods bought by them exclusively for earning their livelihood, suffer
from any defect – By the 1993 Amendment Act, insofar as services
are concerned, wherever the word “hires” was used, the same was
substituted by the word “hires or avails of” – By the 1993 Amendment
Act, insofar as s. 2(1)(d)(i) is concerned, an Explanation was
[2022] 5 S.C.R. 945
945
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
946
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 5 S.C.R.
provided to the effect that ‘commercial 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.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1.1 Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection
Act,1986  is in two parts. Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the said Act deals
with buying of goods. A person who buys any goods for a
consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and
partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment would
be a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the said
Act. It also includes any user of such goods other than the person
who buys such goods for a consideration, which has  been  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. However, Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the said Act excludes
a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial
purpose. Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the said Act is with respect to hiring
of services. According to it, the term ‘consumer’ means any
person who 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. It also included any beneficiary of
such services other than the person who hires the services as is
provided under Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the said Act. [Paras 24 &
25][957-C-F]
1.2. In order to plug the loopholes and enlarge the scope
of areas covered, the legislature brought certain amendments to
the Act by the Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act, 1993.
One of the objects of the said Act was to enable the consumers,
who are self- employed, to file complaints before the redressal
agencies, where goods bought by them exclusively for earning
their livelihood, suffer from any defect. By the 1993 Amendment
Act, insofar as services are concerned, wherever the word “hires”
was used, the same was substituted by the word “hires or avails
of”. By the 1993 Amendment Act, insofar as Section 2(1)(d)(i) is
concerned, an Explanation was provided to the effect that
‘commercial purpose’ does not include use by a consumer of
goods bought and used by him exclusively for the purpose of
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
947
earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. [Paras 27 

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