Summary
A service provider asserting that a consumer obtained services for a commercial purpose must prove that exclusion on a preponderance of probabilities. Only after that burden is discharged must the complainant establish the livelihood-through-self-employment exception. The chit company’s unsupported commercial-purpose plea did not shift the burden. Its appeals were dismissed, leaving undisturbed the concurrent findings of deficiency in failing to refund subscriptions.
Issues
- Who must prove the commercial-purpose exclusion from consumer status.
- When the complainant must prove the livelihood-through-self-employment exception.
- Whether the chit company substantiated its maintainability objection.
Provisions considered
- Section 2(1)(d), Consumer Protection Act, 1986The dispute required examination of consumer status and commercial purpose rather than merely whether the complainant qualified as a person. The Court explained the sequential burdens applicable to the basic definition, exclusion and exception. (¶¶ 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23)
- Sections 101 and 102, Indian Evidence Act, 1872The principle that the party pleading a fact must prove it placed the commercial-purpose burden on the provider raising the exclusion. (¶ 20)
Held
- The lower consumer forums had addressed whether the complainant was a person, instead of the actual objection that it obtained the services commercially. Correct issue framing and allocation of the burden were essential; the Supreme Court resolved the maintainability point rather than remanding. (¶¶ 9, 10, 11, 12, 19)
- The complainant must first establish purchase of goods or availing of services for consideration. The provider invoking the commercial-purpose exclusion must then establish it; imposing a negative burden on the complainant to disprove commercial purpose would be inconsistent with the burden-of-proof principle and the beneficial legislation. (¶¶ 15, 20)
- The provider’s burden is discharged on a preponderance of probabilities, using the governing commercial-purpose principles. Only if that burden is met does the complainant have to establish that the transaction falls within the livelihood-through-self-employment exception. (¶¶ 21, 22, 23)
- The chit company merely pleaded commercial purpose and repeated its assertion on affidavit without evidence probabilising it. Its argument that the complainant had neither pleaded nor proved self-employment was premature because the company had not first established the commercial-purpose exclusion. (¶¶ 18, 23)
- The Court declined to reopen the concurrent findings of deficiency in service made by all three consumer forums and dismissed the appeals. (¶¶ 24, 25)
Result
Appeals dismissed; commercial-purpose objection failed for want of proof. Concurrent consumer-forum findings of deficiency left undisturbed.