The Supreme Court reiterated that if the commercial use of goods is by the purchaser himself for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment, such purchaser of goods is a “consumer'”.
The bench observed the following issue before them and observed :
“Whether the evidence on record is suggestive or indicative of the fact that the premises in question were booked by the complainants with the intention of selfemployment or self-use.
The affidavit of evidence as quoted above clearly points that the complainants wanted to dispose of the property in DENMARK and wanted to come down to Delhi to start a business. It is for this purpose that the premises in question were booked.
The evidence also discloses that the Complainant no.1 was not employed any more in DENMARK and as a matter of fact, he was serving RED CROSS, a charitable organization. In the circumstances, it cannot be ruled that the case of the Complainants would not come within the definition of “consumer” as defined under the provisions of the Act.
We, therefore, set-aside the view taken by the National Commission. The National Commission had confined itself to questions whether the complainants were ”consumers” or not, and, whether the dispute came within the parameters and provisions of the Act, and other issues, namely, whether the respondents were deficient in rendering services, and if so, whether any compensation would be payable? were not dealt with by the National Commission. Therefore, while allowing these appeals and holding the Complainants to be “consumers” and the Complaint to be maintainable under the provisions of the Act, we remit the matter back to the National Commission to consider the other issues. The Complaint No.62 of 2018 stands restored to the file of the National Commission.”