http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: M/S. CHEEMA ENGINEERING SERVICES

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: RAJAN SINGH

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       01/11/1996

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: Present:               Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.Ramaswamy               Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.B. Pattanaik      C.S. Vaidyanathan,  Sr. Adv.,  Rajesh K. Sharma, Rakesh K.  Sharma,  Ms.  Shalu  Sharma,  Advs.  with  him  for  the appellant      B.Parthasarthy, Adv. for the Respondent                          O R D E R      The following order of the Court was delivered:      Leave granted.      We have heard learned counsel on both sides.      The only  question for  consideration is  : whether the respondent has  been using  the machine  "Brickman" for clay preparation, brick moulding, brick drying and brick burning, after purchasing the same from the appellant for evening his livelihood within  the meaning  of  Explanation  to  section 2(1)(d)  of  the  consumer  Protection  Act,  1986?  Section 2(1)(d) reads as under:      "Consumer" means any person who:-      (i)   buys    any   goods   for   a      consideration which  has been  paid      or promised  or partly promised, or      under  any   system   of   deferred      payment and  includes any  user  of      such goods  other then  the  person      who    buys    such    goods    for      consideration paid  or promised  or      partly  promised,   or  under   any      system  of  deferred  payment  when      such use  is made with the approval      of  such   person,  but   does  not      include a  person who  obtains such      goods  for   resale   or   for   ay      commercial purpose; or      (ii)  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  and      includes any  beneficiary  of  such

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

    services other  than the person who      hires     the      services     for      consideration paid  or promised, or      partly paid and partly promised, or      under  any   system   of   deferred      payment,  when  such  services  are      availed of with the approval of the      first mentioned person."      If any  goods are  purchased for consideration, paid or promised or  partly paid  or under  any system  of  deferred payment including  any user  of such  goods other  than  the person who  by such  goods for  the  consideration  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,  the purchaser  is the  ’consumer’ within the  meaning of  the Act.  But the  Act provides  for certain exceptions,  namely, "does  not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or..."      The Explanation  to the  definition of  ’consumer’  has been added  by way  of an  amendment in  1993 which reads as under:-      "Explanation,--For the  purpose  of      sub-clause     (i),     "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."      In other words, the Explanation excludes from the ambit of commercial  purpose in sub-clause (i) if section 2(1)(d), any  goods   purchased  by   a  consumer  and  used  by  him exclusively for  the purpose  of earning  his livelihood  by means of  self-employment. Such  purchase of  goods is not a commercial purpose.  The question,  therefore, is  : whether the respondent  has been  using the  aforesaid  machine  for self-employment? The  word ’self-employment ’is not defined. Therefore, it  is a  matter of  evidence.  Unless  there  is evidence and  on consideration  thereof it  is included that the machine   was  used only for self-employment to earn his livelihood  without   a  sense   of  commercial  purpose  by employing o  regular basis the employee or workmen for trade in the manufacture and sale of bricks, it would be for self- employment. Manufacture  and sale  of bricks in a commercial way may  also be  to earn  livelihood, but  "merely  earning livelihood in commercial business", does not mean that it is not  for   commercial  purpose.   Self-employment   connotes altogether a  different concept,  namely, he  alone uses the machinery  purchased  for  the  purpose  of  manufacture  by employing himself  in working out or producing the goods for earning his  livelihood. ’He’  includes the  members of  his family.  Whether   the  respondent   is  using  the  machine exclusively by  himself and  the members  of his  family for preparation, manufacture  and sale  of bricks  or whether he employed any  workmen and  if so,  how many,  are matters of evidence. The  burden is  on the  respondent to  prove them. Therefore, the  Tribunals were  not right in concluding that the respondent is using the machine only for self-employment and that,  therefore, it  is not  a commercial  purpose. The orders of  all the  Tribunals stand set aside. The matter is remitted to  the  District  forum.  The  District  Forum  is directed to record evidence of the parties and dispose it of in accordance  with law  within a  period of six months from the date of receipt order.      The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3