IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.265 OF 2009 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.5011 of 2007)

Vyavasthapak C. Print and Anr.       ...Appellant(s)

Versus

Laxmi Agro Chemical       ...Respondent(s)

O  R  D  E  R

Leave granted.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The  District  Consumer  Forum,  Jalgaon,  allowed  the  complaint  of  the

respondent and directed the appellants herein to pay Rs.3,07,500/- with nine per cent

interest and cost of Rupees two thousand.  The appeal preferred against that order

was dismissed by the Maharashtra Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission [for

short,  `the  State  Commission’],  and  appellate  order  has  been  confirmed  by  the

National  Consumer  Disputes  Redressal  Commission  [for  short,  `the  National

Commission].  Hence, this appeal by special leave.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the

complainant  was  not  a  “consumer”  within  the  meaning  of  Section  2(1)(d)  of  the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, `the Act’) and the complaint was barred by

limitation, but without properly appreciating the arguments put forward on  behalf of

the appellants, the District  Forum  and State and National Commissions ruled in

....2/-

- 2 -

favour of the respondent.  On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of

the respondent submitted that he was a “consumer” within the meaning of Section 2

(1)(d) of the Act, especially in view of the explanation thereto as the machine was

purchased by the complainant exclusively for earning livelihood by means of self-

employment.  He further submitted that the complaint was not barred by limitation

and the District Forum did not commit any error by granting relief to the respondent.

A perusal  of the record shows that both the parties had filed affidavits

before the District Forum in support of their respective pleadings, but no evidence

was  produced  on  the  issues  whether  the  respondent  is  a  “consumer”  within  the

meaning  of  Section  2(1)(d)  of  the  Act  and  whether  the  complaint  was  within

limitation.  In our view, having regard to the nature of controversy raised before it,

the District Forum should have afforded opportunities to the parties to lead evidence

and as the matter has been decided without taking recourse to that procedure, the

impugned orders are liable to be set aside.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, impugned order are set aside and the

matter is remitted to the District Forum, Jalgaon, to decide the complaint afresh after

giving opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence.  It is needless to say that the

question of limitation shall also be decided afresh by the District Forum.

......................J.       [B.N. AGRAWAL]

......................J.       [G.S. SINGHVI]

New Delhi, January 16, 2009.