Ramesh purchased a tractor from Mahi Ltd. for tilling the land but he used it in idle time for transportation of agricultural produce on hire. Some defects were developed in the engine of the tractor. He complained to Ma

In the case of Bhupendra Jang Bahadur Guna v. Regional Manager and Others (II 1995 CPJ 139) , the National Commission held that a tractor purchased primarily to till the land of the purchaser and let out on hire during the idle time to till the lands of others would not amount to commercial use. In the case of Laxmi Engineering Works v. P.S.G. Industrial Institute , Supreme Court held that the explanation to Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is clarificatory in nature. It observed that whether the purpose for which a person has bought goods is a 'commercial purpose' is always a question of facts and to be decided in the facts and circumstances of each case. If the commercial use is by the purchaser himself for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment such purchaser of goods would yet be a consumer. Yes, In the light of the above facts and circumstances, Ramesh will succeed in his own case. He is still a consumer within the definition of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.