[Landmark Judgement] Rohit Chaudhary V. Vipul Ltd. (2023)

Landmark Judgment Law Insider (1)

Published on: 18 September 2023 at 09:20 IST

Court: Supreme Court of India

Citation: Rohit Chaudhary V. Vipul Ltd. (2023)

Honourable Supreme Court of India has held that Consumer Protection Act is a remedy for “Business-to-Consumer” disputes and not for “Business-to-Business” disputes. It is however held that if the commercial use is by the purchaser himself for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment, such purchaser of goods is yet a ‘consumer’.

11. A plain reading of the expression “consumer” indicates that any person who buys any goods for consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buy such goods. 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 or services for resale or for any commercial purpose.

It is amply clear from the above definition that the Parliament has excluded from the scope of ‘Consumer’ for igniting proceedings under the Act, a person who obtains goods or services for re-sale or for any commercial purpose. Going by the plain dictionary meaning of the words used in the definition section the intention of Parliament must be understood to be to exclude from the scope of the expression “consumer” any person who buys goods for the purpose of their being used in any activity engaged on a large scale for the purpose of making profit.

The words ‘for any commercial purpose’ must be understood as covering the cases other than those of resale of the goods. Thus, it is obvious, that Parliament intended to exclude from the scope of definition not merely persons who obtain goods for resale but also those who purchase goods with a view to using such goods for carrying on any activity on a large scale for the purpose of earning profit. Thus, persons buying goods either for resale or for use in large scale profit making activity will not be a consumer entitled to protection under the Act, which would be a plain interpretation of this definition clause. The intention of the Parliament as can be gathered from the definition section is to deny the benefits of the Act to persons purchasing goods either for purpose of resale or for the purpose of being used in profit making activity engaged on a large scale.

Drafted By Abhijit Mishra

Related Post