Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a borrower of a project loan availed for brand-building and film post-production falls within the definition of consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Analysis: The expression "consumer" excludes a person who hires or avails services for any commercial purpose. The statutory explanation preserves only those cases where services are availed exclusively for earning livelihood by means of self-employment. Applying the dominant purpose test, the loan transaction was held to be a business-to-business arrangement with a direct nexus to profit generation. The asserted self-branding object did not alter the commercial character of the transaction, since the loan was intended to facilitate revenue and profit from the underlying commercial venture.
Conclusion: The borrower was not a consumer, and the consumer complaint was not maintainable.
Final Conclusion: The order of the consumer commission was set aside in the appeal challenging maintainability, while the connected appeal on compensation did not succeed.
Ratio Decidendi: Services availed for a transaction having a direct and dominant nexus with profit generation are for a commercial purpose, and the self-employment exception does not apply to a business-to-business loan taken for commercial exploitation.