Definition of "consumer" clarified under Consumer Protection Act, 1986, excludes goods for self-employment.

The court clarified the definition of "consumer" under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, emphasizing that goods bought for self-employment to earn a livelihood do not fall under "commercial purpose." The explanation added by the 1993 Amendment Act applies to pending proceedings, turning the determination of "commercial purpose" into a question of fact. In the case at hand, the appellant did not purchase the machine for self-employment, thus not qualifying as a "consumer." The appeal was dismissed, allowing the appellant to file a suit and claim the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act for the period spent in the Consumer Protection Act proceedings.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Definition and ambit of "consumer" u/s 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. Interpretation of "commercial purpose" within the definition of "consumer".
3. Applicability and impact of the explanation added by the 1993 Amendment Act.
4. Jurisdiction and nature of Consumer Disputes Redressal Agencies.
5. Finality and review of the orders of Consumer Disputes Redressal Agencies.

Summary:

1. Definition and Ambit of "Consumer" u/s 2(d):
The definition of "consumer" in Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 excludes "a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose." The explanation added by the 1993 Amendment clarifies that "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.

2. Interpretation of "Commercial Purpose":
The term "commercial purpose" is not explicitly defined in the Act. The National Commission has consistently interpreted it to exclude individuals who purchase goods for large-scale profit activities. The Supreme Court affirmed that the explanation added in 1993 clarifies that goods used by the buyer himself for earning his livelihood through self-employment do not constitute a "commercial purpose".

3. Applicability and Impact of the Explanation Added by 1993 Amendment Act:
The explanation added by the 1993 Amendment Act is clarificatory and applies to all pending proceedings. It emphasizes that goods bought for self-employment to earn a livelihood do not fall under "commercial purpose". This explanation turns the determination of "commercial purpose" into a question of fact, to be decided based on the circumstances of each case.

4. Jurisdiction and Nature of Consumer Disputes Redressal Agencies:
The Act establishes quasi-judicial bodies at the district, state, and national levels to provide inexpensive and speedy remedies to consumers. These bodies are not courts but have some powers of a civil court. They are designed to supplement the existing judicial system and provide an additional forum for resolving consumer disputes.

5. Finality and Review of Orders:
Section 24 of the Act declares that the orders of the District Forum, State Commission, or National Commission are final if no appeal is preferred. These orders cannot be questioned in a civil court, except in specific situations outlined in Dhulabhai v. State of M.P. The forums have the jurisdiction to determine whether a complainant is a "consumer" and whether grounds for relief are established.

Conclusion:
The explanation added by the 1993 Amendment Act is clarificatory and applies to all pending proceedings. Whether the purpose for which goods are bought is a "commercial purpose" is a question of fact. A person who buys goods and uses them exclusively for earning his livelihood through self-employment is a "consumer". In the present case, the appellant did not purchase the machine for self-employment to earn a livelihood, and thus, is not a "consumer" under the Act. The appeal is dismissed, but the appellant can file a suit and claim the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act for the period spent in prosecuting the proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act.

---