In view of the findings of the National Commission that the goods sold by the Appellant to the Respondent/complainant amounted to 'goods' and that such goods were purchased for commercial purpose of earning more profits, there could be no dispute that even the services which were offered had to be for the commercial purpose. The complaint itself was not maintainable; firstly, on the count that under Section 2(1)(d)(i), the goods have been purchased for commercial purposes and on the second count that the services were hired or availed of for commercial purposes. The matter does not come even under the Explanation which was introduced on the same day i.e. on 15.3.2003 by way of the amendment as it is nobody's case that the goods bought and used by the Respondent herein and the services availed by the Respondent were exclusively for the purpose of earning the Respondent's livelihood by means of self- employment. The complaint itself was not maintainable in toto. However, we observe that the parties may avail of the remedies available to them in accordance with law. they can claim the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act to exclude the period spent in prosecuting proceedings under the Act while computing the period of limitation prescribed for such a suit.
