Case: GMMCO LIMITED Vs. ECOVINAL INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED

The Respondent purchased a 250 KVA Cat Diesel Generator Set from the Appellant on 09.12.2005. When the afore-stated generator set was installed at the factory premises of the Respondent at Kunigal, it was found to be defective. The Respondent brought the defects in the generator set to the notice of the Appellant, and asked the Appellant to either repair the same or to replace the generator set. The communication addressed by the Respondent to the Appellant did not receive any response from the Appellant. It is therefore, that the Respondent issued a legal notice to the Appellant on 17.05.2006. The Appellant did not respond to the legal notice.2. The Respondent thereafter initiated proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bangalore, (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum). Despite notice having been served of the said complaint on the Appellant, the Appellant did not enter appearance before the District Forum. The District Forum accordingly passed an order dated 2.11.2006 allowing the complaint of the Respondent. The District Forum directed the Appellant to replace the diesel generator set within two months, alternatively, the Appellant was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 11,50,000/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from January, 2006 till the realization of the same. The Respondent was also awarded litigation cost of Rs. 5,000/-.3. Dissatisfied with the order passed on 2.11.2006 by the District Forum, the Appellant approached the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission). The appeal preferred by the Appellant before the State Commission, was dismissed by an order dated 11.1.2007. The Appellant then assailed the orders passed by the District Forum and the State Commission through a revision petition before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as the National Commission). The National Commission, having taken into consideration the fact, that the Appellant had not appeared before the District Forum in-spite of service on it, and had been proceeded against ex-parte before the District Forum, and because, the Appellant had not controverted the averments made in the complaint by leading evidence to show, that the diesel generator set had been purchased by the Respondent for commercial purposes, declined to interfere with the orders passed by the District Forum, and the State Commission.4. Dissatisfied with the order passed by the National Commission dated 18.01.2012, the Appellant approached this Court.

Court's reasoning:
We are satisfied, that this Court, while interpreting the explanation under Section 2(d) of the Act, arrived at the express conclusion, that the above judgment declares the legal position, as has been expressed by the learned counsel for the Appellant. In the present case, the activity to which the Respondent had put the diesel generator set purchased from the Appellant, must be deemed to be a commercial activity, not limited to the earning of an individuals livelihood, by means of self-employment.