Q: Discuss about the citation of M/S. Cheema Engineering Services vs Rajan Singh on 1 November, 1996 ?

Ans: In Cheema Engg. Service  v Rajan Singh (1997) 1 SCC 131, (1997) . 
The respondent purchased a machine ('Brickman') from the appellant for brick-moulding/ drying/burning and thus to produce bricks. The machine turned out to be defective, the appellant refused to rectify/replace it. The respondent moved the consumer court and claimed damages. The appellant opposed his complaint on the ground that as the machine was to be used for *commercial purpose', he was not a 'consumer' within the meaning of Sec. 2(1)(d)(i) (exception clause). The respondent contended that his case is covered by Explanation to Sec. 2(1)(d).

The Supreme Court observed: The word "self-employment" is not defined under the Consumer Protection Act. Therefore, it is a matter of evidence. Unless there is evidence and on consideration thereof it is concluded that the machine was used only for self-employment to earn his livelihood without a sense of commercial purpose by employing on regular basis the employee/ workmen for trade in the manufacture and sale of bricks, it would be for 'self-employment.' Manufacture and sale of bricks in a commercial way may also be to earn livelihood, but "merely earning livelihood in commercial business" does not mean that it is not for commercial purpose.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Difference between Injuria Sine Damno and Damnum Sine Injuria ?

Ans: Tort in Injuria Sine Damno and Damnum Sine Injuria. Injury means the legal right has been violated.  In Injuria Sine Damno, there is an injury without damage.  Here, the legal right has been violated  but there is no damage and the essential condition in Tort is that the legal right must be violated. Thus, Injuria Sine Damno is to be considered in Tort.  Damnum Sine Injuria means there are damages but there is no injury. Here, there are damages but the legal right has not violated. The essential condition in tort is that the legal right must be violated but here there is no violation of legal right. Hence, Damnum Sine Injuria is not considered in tort.
Read more

Q: What is Re Polemis Case in tort of remoteness of damage?

Ans: In Re Polemis case, court rejected test of reasonable foresight and applied test of directness of tort of remoteness of damage.  Re Polemis Case The defendant hired (chartered) a ship. He loaded ship with tin of benzene and petrol. Due to leakage of the tins some petrol collected on the hold of ship. Due to negligence of defendant servant, a plank fell on the hold and spark caused fire in the whole ship. Ship was burnt totally. Here defendant was held liable although he cannot reasonable foresee. Test of directness was applied.
Read more

Q: Elaborate the citation of Rajasthan v. Mst. Vidhyawati and another (1962) ?

Ans:  The State of Rajasthan v. Mst. Vidhyawati and another (1962). Lokumal i.e. Defendant no. 1, a temporary employee of the State of Rajasthan was employed as a motor driver (on probation) of a government jeep car under the Collector of Udaipur. The car had been sent for repairs. On February 11, 1952, while driving the car back from the workshop after the repairs were done, defendant no. 1 knocked down one Jagdishlal, who was walking on the footpath by the side of the public road. Jagdishlal was severely injured and his skull and backbone were fractured. Three days later, he died in the hospital.  The court held that the state will be liable to pay compensation for the Tort of his employee.
Read more