Laxmi Engineering Case Study

Facts of the case:
The appellant, Laxmi Engineering Works, is a proprietary company established under the Employment Promotion scheme and it is registered as a small scale industry with the Directorate of Industries, Maharashtra. The case is that the appellant, Laxmi Engineering works, placed an order to purchase a CNC universal turning machine (Model: PSG 450) on May 28, 1990. After sometime Laxmi Engineering works noticed that there were several defects came to light and the same had been discussed with the respondent.
After had a long discussion about the issue, Respondent decided to send his service engineers to rectify the defects but they couldn’t rectify it and unable to set right the machine back to normal working condition. The appellant
In the circumstances, the National commission failed to see that the machinery was purchased for commercial purpose, in question which is alleged to be defective was purchased for a commercial purpose. Hence, the complainant is not entitled to be regarded as a consumer and the complaint petition filed by him was not maintainable before the State Commission and the complaint petition was dismissed. The National Commission, however, observed that their order does not preclude the appellant from pursuing his remedy by way of ordinary civil suit.
Principle of law dealt in the case:
Consumer protection act, It defined the consumer under Section 2(1)(d) that any person who buys any goods or consideration, also user of the such goods other than the person purchased the goods for consideration, or the person who hires any services for consideration, but not the person who obtained goods for resale or for any commercial purpose, however, it has exempted the commercial purpose used by the consumer for his livelihood by means of self-employment.
1. The main object of the Act is to provide consumer protection and consumer
The court has clearly stated here that a person who buys goods and uses them himself, exclusively to earn his livelihood, by means of self-employment, is within the definition of the expression consumer as defined in consumer protection act. Consequently, the self-employed are entitled to seek damages under the consumer protection act from the sellers of faulty machinery and gadgets being used for their livelihood.
The Supreme Court thus apprehended that it was not the value of the goods that mattered but the purpose to which the goods bought were put to. If the person did not himself use the goods but allowed them to be worked by others, then he would not be a consumer.
Similar case
In Synco Textile Private Ltd Vs Greaves Cotton and Co Ltd (1991) 1 CPJ, the Court while emphasizing on the word "commercial purpose" laid down that "for any commercial purpose are wide enough to take in all cases where goods are purchased for being used in any activity directly intended to generate profit". Synco Textile's case implicates that "commercial purpose" should be distinguished from commercial organization or commercial