In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has elucidated the definition of 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, particularly concerning transactions undertaken for profit-generating activities. The Court held that individuals or entities engaging in transactions with a direct nexus to profit generation do not qualify as 'consumers' under the Act, thereby rendering consumer complaints in such contexts non-maintainable.
Case Background
The case in question involved Ad Bureau Advertising Pvt. Ltd., which had secured a loan of ₹10 crore from the Central Bank of India in 2014. This loan was intended for the post-production of the Rajinikanth-starrer film "Kochadaiyan." Subsequently, the loan account became irregular, leading to litigation before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT). Eventually, a One-Time Settlement (OTS) was reached for ₹3.56 crore. Despite adhering to the OTS terms, Ad Bureau alleged that the bank reported it as a defaulter to the Credit Information Bureau of India Limited (CIBIL), causing reputational harm and business losses. Consequently, Ad Bureau filed a consumer complaint before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), alleging deficiency in service by the bank.
NCDRC's Decision
The NCDRC ruled in favor of Ad Bureau, directing the Central Bank to compensate ₹75 lakh and cover litigation costs. The Commission determined that the bank's actions constituted a deficiency in service, adversely affecting the complainant's business operations and reputation. Dissatisfied with this decision, the Central Bank appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the maintainability of the consumer complaint on the grounds that the transaction was purely commercial.
Supreme Court's Analysis
The Supreme Court's analysis centered on the interpretation of 'consumer' as defined in Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. According to this provision, a 'consumer' is one who hires or avails of any services for consideration, excluding those who avail such services for any commercial purpose. The Court emphasized that the exclusion pertains to services availed for activities directly intended to generate profit.
The Court observed that Ad Bureau's loan was obtained for a project with a clear profit motive, establishing a direct nexus with profit generation. The dominant purpose of the loan was to finance the post-production of a commercial film, an activity inherently linked to revenue generation. Therefore, the Court concluded that Ad Bureau did not fall within the definition of 'consumer' under the Act, rendering the consumer complaint non-maintainable.
Clarification on 'Commercial Purpose'
The Court further clarified the scope of 'commercial purpose' within the Act. It noted that while the Act does not explicitly define 'commercial purpose,' it generally excludes transactions intended for profit generation from the purview of consumer protection. However, an exception exists for goods or services purchased for self-employment to earn a livelihood. In such cases, individuals are considered consumers, even if the goods or services are used for income-generating activities, provided they are primarily for sustaining oneself.
In Ad Bureau's case, the argument that the loan was for self-use, specifically for brand-building, was unconvincing. The Court reasoned that brand-building inherently aims to attract more customers and increase revenue, aligning with profit-generating activities. Thus, the loan's dominant purpose remained commercial, falling outside the Act's protective scope.
Implications of the Ruling
This ruling has significant implications for the interpretation of 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act. It delineates the boundaries of consumer protection, particularly concerning transactions undertaken by businesses. The judgment underscores that entities engaging in transactions with a primary profit motive cannot seek redress under the Act, as such transactions are considered commercial in nature.
The decision also highlights the necessity of assessing the dominant purpose of a transaction when determining its classification under the Act. If the primary intent is profit generation, the transaction is deemed commercial, and the parties involved are excluded from the Act's consumer protection provisions.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court's ruling provides clarity on the definition of 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, particularly concerning transactions with profit-generating motives. By emphasizing the dominant purpose test, the Court has established a clear criterion for distinguishing between consumer and commercial transactions. This judgment serves as a crucial reference for future cases involving the interpretation of 'consumer' under the Act, ensuring that the protective measures are appropriately applied to genuine consumers while excluding commercial entities engaged in profit-driven activities.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.