M/S CHEEMA ENGINEERING SERVICESversusRAJAN SINGH
- Citation
- 1996 INSC 1267
- Decided
- 1 November 1996
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Holding
The burden of proving exclusive self‑employment lies on the respondent, and the Tribunals erred in concluding otherwise; their orders are set aside and the matter remitted for evidence‑recording.
Summary
Mis Cheema Engineering Services sold a brick‑making machine ("Brickman") to Rajan Singh. The dispute centered on whether Singh used the machine for self‑employment, i.e., exclusively to earn his livelihood, or for a commercial purpose, which would exclude him from the definition of "consumer" under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission had held Singh to be a consumer, but the appellate court found that the burden of proving exclusive self‑employment rests on the respondent. The court observed that the evidence on how the machine was used – whether only by Singh and his family or with hired workmen – was a factual issue requiring examination. Consequently, the appellate court set aside the tribunal’s orders and remitted the matter to the District Forum to record evidence and decide within six months. The appeal was allowed and no costs were awarded.
Issues considered
- Whether the respondent used the brick‑making machine exclusively for self‑employment, thereby qualifying as a "consumer" under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
- Who bears the burden of proving the nature of the use (self‑employment vs. commercial purpose).
Legislation cited
- Consumer Protection Act, 1986s. 2(1)(d)
Subjects
Judgment
A MIS CHEEMA ENGINEERING SERVICES
v.
RAJAN SINGH
NOVEMBER 1, 1996
B [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAJK, JJ.]
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 :
S.2 (I) (d) Explanation-Purchase of machine for preparation of
bricks-Whether for self-employment or for commercial purpose-Held:
C Burden on the respondent to prove-Matter remitted to District Form for
recording evidence and disposing of the matter within six months-
"Consumer"-Meaning of
Words & Phrases :
D "Consumer "-Meaning ofin the context ofConsumer Protection Act.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 14787 of
1996.
E From the Judgment and Order dated 6.5.96 ofthe National Consumers
Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in R.P. No. 729 of 1995.
C.S. Vaidyanathan, Rajan K. Sharma, Rakesh K. Sharma and
Ms. Shalu Sharma for the Appellant.
F B. Parthasarthy for the Respondent.
The following Orders of the Court was delivered :
Leave granted.
G 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
H appellant for earning his livelihood within the meaning of Explanation to
340
CHEEMA ENGG. SERVICES v. RAJAN SINGH 341
Section 2 (I) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986? Section 2 (1) (d) A
reads as under :
"Consumer" means any person who:
(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid er
promised or partly promised, or under any system of deferred B
payment, and includes any user of such goods other than the
person who buys such goods for 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,
but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale
or for any commercial purpose; or C
(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 services other than the person who hires the services for
consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly D
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 E
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' with the meaning of the Act. But
the Act provides for certain exceptions, namely, "does not include a person F
who obtains such goods for resale or 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 G
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 H
342 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R.
A commercial purpose in sub-clause (i) of 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
B evidence. Unless there is evidence and on consideration thereof it is
concluded that the machine was used only for self-employment to earn his
livelihood without a sense of commercial purpose by employing on 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
C 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
D 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
E remitted to the District Forum. The District Forum is directed to record
the evidence of the parties and dispose it of in accordance with law within
a period of six months from the date of the receipt of this order.
The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
F
G.N. Appeal allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.