The court’s legal analysis in a recent case focuses on clarifying consumer status in commercial transactions. By delving into the nuances of the Consumer Protection Act, the court aims to ensure fair treatment for individuals using goods and services for self-employment purposes, despite engaging in commercial activities. The analysis sheds light on the distinction between transactions solely for self-employment and those for commercial gain, emphasizing the legislative intent behind providing swift justice in consumer disputes.
Facts
- Appellant pledged 37,50,000 equity shares towards the Bank’s dues in March 2001.
- Shares of Ansal Hotels Ltd. merged with ITC Ltd. resulting in 3,75,000 ITC Ltd. shares.
- Bank demanded Rs.600.61 lakhs in September 2001 due to irregular overdraft.
- Appellant advised Bank to sell pledged shares in December 2001 to close the account.
- Bank raised objection on maintainability of complaint in Debt Recovery Tribunal proceedings.
- Bank issued ‘No Dues Certificate’ in May 2005 certifying no dues on the overdraft account.
- Appellant requested return of pledged shares in June 2005.
- Appellant also worked as a stock-broker for the respondent-Bank.
- Complaint filed against Bank for deficiency in services was dismissed on maintainability grounds.
Also Read: Presumption of Genuine Endorsements in Cheque Case
Arguments
- Appellant had availed services of respondent-Bank for commercial purpose.
- Arbitration proceedings between parties had reached finality, but the Bank withheld shares of the appellant.
- Claim of the respondent-Bank before the Arbitration Forum of BSE was rejected by the BSE Arbitral Tribunal.
- Appellant, as a consumer, had taken overdraft facility from the Bank for self-employment.
- Shares were pledged with the bank as security for the overdraft facility.
- No outstanding dues in the overdraft account after a compromise.
- Bank still withheld shares despite the settlement of dues.
- Appellant also worked as a stock-broker for the bank.
- Repeated requests for return of shares were ignored by the bank.
- Appellant filed a complaint under the said Act when shares were not returned.
- Argument that services availed were exclusively for the purpose of earning a livelihood by means of self-employment.
- Claimed that the Commission erred in interpreting the term ‘earning livelihood by means of self-employment’.
- Dual relationship between appellant and respondent-Bank.
- Learned Senior Counsel representing the respondent-Bank argues that the Consumer Protection Act was enacted to provide swift justice to consumer disputes.
- The Act offers a summary procedure to settle consumer disputes promptly.
- Expanding the definition of ‘consumer’ to include those availing services for commercial purposes would defeat the purpose of the Act.
- Citing various court judgments, the counsel emphasizes the need to prevent a flood of complaints and maintain the Act’s efficiency.
- The respondent’s counsel contends that the Act aims to protect consumers from exploitation and ensure quality products and services for them.
Also Read: Medical Negligence and Compensation: A Landmark Decision
Analysis
- The 2002 Amendment Act aimed to exclude services availed for commercial purposes from the definition of consumer disputes redressal agencies.
- The legislature sought to align Section 2(1)(d)(ii) with Section 2(1)(d)(i) by clarifying the definition of ‘commercial purpose’.
- The amendments aimed to keep commercial transactions out of the Act’s purview while protecting those using goods and services solely for self-employment to earn a livelihood.
- The Act differentiates between commercial activities and activities exclusively for self-employment to determine consumer status.
- The legislative intent was to provide protection under the Act to individuals using goods or services for self-employment purposes, despite engaging in commercial activities.
- The Act’s quasi-judicial bodies were established to supplement the existing judicial system, offering faster and cost-effective remedies to consumers.
- Determining commercial purpose is a factual question dependent on individual cases, focusing on the dominant intention behind the transaction.
- The Act revolves around protecting consumer interests and ensuring fair treatment in the market dominated by large trading entities.
- Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act is divided into two parts, one dealing with buying goods and the other with hiring services.
- A person buying goods for personal use is considered a consumer under Section 2(1)(d)(i), while a person hiring services is considered a consumer under Section 2(1)(d)(ii).
- The 1993 Amendment Act made changes to the definition of ‘consumer’ by substituting ‘hires’ with ‘hires or avails of’ in the provisions related to services.
- Commercial purpose, under the definition of ‘consumer’, excludes the use of goods and services for resale or any commercial endeavor.
- The Act aims to protect consumer interests by establishing councils and authorities for resolving consumer disputes efficiently.
- One of the objectives of the Act is to ensure consumers’ right to be heard and have their interests considered in relevant forums.
- The preamble of the Act emphasizes better protection of consumer interests through the establishment of consumer councils and dispute resolution mechanisms.
- The term ‘consumer’ in the Act includes both those who buy goods and those who hire services for personal use, excluding those who buy goods for resale or commercial purposes.
- The definition of ‘consumer’ under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act excludes a person who obtains goods for a commercial purpose.
- The distinction between ‘commercial purpose’ and ‘earning livelihood by self-employment’ is crucial in determining the status of a consumer.
- The ambiguity in the meaning of ‘for the purpose of earning his livelihood’ is clarified by the explanation.
- If a person purchases goods exclusively for self-employment to earn a livelihood, they fall within the definition of a consumer.
- Purchase of goods for large-scale profit-generating activities does not qualify as consumer activity.
- The addition of the explanation in Section 2(d)(i) by the 1993 Amendment Act clarified the distinction further.
- The focus of the Act is on ‘business-to-consumer’ disputes and not ‘business-to-business’ disputes.
- The purpose of the Act is to provide a forum for resolving disputes between consumers and suppliers.
- Activities like manufacturing or industrial business are generally considered as commercial purposes.
- The purchase of goods for self-employment and livelihood falls within the definition of a consumer activity.
- Accepting business to business disputes as consumer disputes defeats the purpose of providing speedy redressal.
- No error found in the findings of the Commission.
- Services were not availed exclusively for earning livelihood through self-employment.
Also Read: Remand of Writ Petition for Restoration and Decision on Merits
Decision
- The Commission has allowed the appellant to seek a remedy from the appropriate forum
- The appeal has been dismissed
- All pending applications have been disposed of
- No costs have been ordered
Case Title: SHRIKANT G. MANTRI Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK (2022 INSC 217)
Case Number: C.A. No.-011397-011397 / 2016
