A. THIRUVENGADAM vs BRANCH MANAGER, E.L.G.I. EQUIPMENTS LTD.

WE are satisfied that this appeal is not entitled to acceptance at our hands. The complainant purchased equipments from the opposite parties for the purpose of running a service station. According to the complainant, the hoses supplied by the opposite parties burst and thus the opposite parties have not supplied him with standard quality material and thus there is deficiency in service. The fact that the complainant purchased the hoses for the purpose of connecting them in his service station is the very case put forward by the complainant. The Lower Forum held that as the purchase made was for commercial purpose and as there is nothing to show that it was purchased exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood, the complainant cannot fall under the definition of "consumer" and, therefore, the Lower Forum dismissed the complaint.

THE running of the service station is definitely a business and is commercial-oriented. It is not in dispute that the business of running a service station cannot be done by the complainant himself and he had to necessarily engage persons to run the business. It is also not the case of the complainant that he himself has been operating the hoses and that he had not engaged any personnel to assist him. Under the definition of "consumer", a person who obtains goods for re-sale or commercial purpose stands excluded. By Act 62 of 2002, an Explanation has been added to the definition of "commercial purpose" which reads as follows : "For the purposes of this clause, ''commercial purpose'' does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment."

This amendment was introduced on 17.12.2002. THE present complaint was actually signed by the complainant on 30.3.1999 and filed into Court on 26.4.1999. THE complaint was disposed of by the Lower Forum on 30th November, 1999. THErefore on the date when the complaint was filed, this Explanation was not there and, therefore, as it stood then, a person who obtained goods for commercial purpose stood excluded from the definition of "consumer". THE purchase of hoses for running a service station is definitely for commercial purpose. THErefore, the Act as it stood then really excluded from its operation the complaint and hence the Lower Forum was justified in holding that the complainant is not a consumer and that the action is not maintainable. In such circumstances, we do not see any merit in this appeal. In the result, this appeal is dismissed confirming the order passed by the Lower Forum, but in the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.