Voluntary and Involuntary Consumer
Voluntary and Involuntary Consumer
Voluntary Consumer is one who purchases the thing as they want or according to their needs but an Involuntary consumer is a person who provides to whom some goods are provided as the facilities or services they do not want to have such goods as these goods are not according to their needs.
Object of Consumer Protection Act
- To provide for better protection of the consumer’s interest and for that purpose
- To make provision for the establishment of a consumer council and other authorities for settlement of consumer disputes. Its object is to render simple, inexpensive, and speedy remedies to consumers with complaints against defective goods and services.
A consumer is a person who buys goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised or under any system of deferred payment and included any uses of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made, with the approval of such person but does not include a person who obtains such goods for
Resale or for any commercial purpose or hires or avail any services or beneficiary of such services.
Goods Case: SC held that consumers before allotment do not came into existence and cannot be included in the category of Goods.
Reference Case: Sri Gopal Galan and Co. V/s Calcutta stock exchange association Ltd.
Commercial purpose Case
- PushpaMeena V. Shah Enterprises (Rajasthan) Ltd. (1992) C.P.J. 271(Raj) The State Commission High court held that purchase of a vehicle for running it as a Taxi is an instance of commercial purpose therefore the lady is not a consumer. (follow the decision of National Commission in case of Oswal fine arts V/s HMT Madars.
- Skippers towers P Ltd. V A.P Gupta(1995) In; this case, the complainant was in the category of property deaths which a commercial purpose so the complainant was not a consumer.
- Abbey chemicals P Ltd. V KantibhaiD.Patedl (1993) – In this case, the SC held that the purchase of a Xerox machine for installation and use in the office of a large commercial purpose was not held by a consumer.
- BhatiPoulty farm V KewalRamani 1998 CPJ Horticulture the owner of a poultry farm ordered 7500 chicks for commercial purpose but 5700 birds purchased so being not a consumer could not file a case in consumer agencies.
- Jain Irrigation system Ltd. V Malgonda Anna Patil 1993 SCJ 445 —- In; this case, it was held by the court that A small farmer purchasing a Land drip irrigation system for irrigating his crop has been held to be purchases of commercial purpose and therefore not consumers.
- Indian Medical Association V/s V.P Shantah (1995) 6 SCC 651— It is a landmark judgment given by the supreme court. The court held that the Govt. Doctors who are providing services for free of cost did not come under the list of consumers and it will not be service under section 2(8)(a) of 2(1) (0) the Consumer Protection Act.
- Laxmi Ben Laxman Chand shah V/s Sakerben Kanji Chandan 2001(9) SCC 604 —The SC upheld the view of the national commission verifying the claim for compensation by the tenants against their landlords was not accepted. The term of the lease, in this case, did not contain any provision for cleaning repairing and maintenance of the building by landlord and as such it was observed that tenants were not a consumer.
The Commission to render such services on the part of the landlord did not entitle the tenant to claim compensation for the same.
- Goods were purchased for resale, It was held to be purchased for commercial purpose.
Case- Zohiastarlinger Ltd. V Lienth computers Ltd. (1991) 1 CPJ 145.
Nominee of a life Insurance policy is considered as a consumer in the case of –
Case- Jagdish Prasad Dagar V Senior Divisional Manager IC 1992, CPJ, 493
In the case of — Life Insurance Corp. of India V/s shr iChaturbihariLal Appeal No. 29/8
Before the Consumer disputes Redressal Commission Rajasthan Jaipur the Commission held that if the life Insurance Corporation is failed to make payment to the nominee of a deceased person within a reasonable term, It committed default in the performance of the undertaking of the contract of Insurance.
Case- A Person obtaining the goods for commercial purposes has been excluded from the term consumer used under the act.
Case- M/s Oswal fine Arts V/s M/s HMT Madras Petition No. 1 of 1988.Before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi.
The complaint was against of supply of a defective offset printing machine and serious laws and hardship arising out of the defect in the machine purchased by a commercial establishment. The complaint was regarding the supply of machine purchase in 1979. The Commission held that the complainant had obtained the set machinery for its use in his printing press which is a commercial establishment so he was not a consumer under section 2(1)d(i) of the CPA 1986. Prestige stone V/s Sharma Industries purchases machines for commercial purposes.