LexSHRIRAM CHITS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED EARLIER KNOWN AS SHRIRAM CHITS (K) PVT. LTD versus RAGHACHAND ASSOCIATES
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
* Author [2024] 6 S.C.R. 214 : 2024 INSC 403 Shriram Chits (India) Private Limited Earlier Known as Shriram Chits (K) Pvt. Ltd v. Raghachand Associates (Civil Appeal No. 6301 of 2024) 10 May 2024 [Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Aravind Kumar,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the maintainability of the complaint, whether the service obtained by the complainant was for a commercial purpose. Headnotes Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – s. 2(7) – Maintainability of complaint – Consumer complaint before the district forum alleging deficiency of service and seeking refund of amount from the opposite party – Instead of examining whether the service availed by complainant was for commercial purpose, the district forum determined whether the complainant fell within the definition of ‘person’ and holding that there was ‘deficiency in service’, ordered for refund of the claimed amount with interest – Said order upheld by forums below without examining the maintainability issue – Maintainability challenge before this Court, as to whether the service obtained by complainant was for commercial purpose: Held: Onus to prove that the service was obtained for a commercial purpose is on the service provider – Standard of proof has to be measured against a ‘preponderance of probabilities’ – If and only if, the service provider discharges its onus of showing that the service was availed, in fact for a commercial purpose, does the onus shift back to the complainant to bring its case within the third part-explanation (a) to s. 2(7) to show that the service was obtained exclusively for the purpose of earning its livelihood by means of self-employment – Plea of the opposite party that the complainant has not pleaded nor proved that the service was obtained for earning his livelihood through the means of self employment, relates to the third part of the definition of consumer – Question of inquiring into the third part would only arise if the service provider succeeds in crossing the second part by discharging its onus and proving that [2024] 6 S.C.R. 215 Shriram Chits (India) Private Limited Earlier Known as Shriram Chits (K) Pvt. Ltd v. Raghachand Associates the service obtained was for a commercial purpose – Unless the service provider discharges its onus, the onus does not shift back to the complainant to show that the service obtained was exclusively for earning its livelihood through the means of self-employment – On facts, opposite party merely pleaded in its version that the service was obtained for commercial purpose – No evidence led to probabilise its case other than merely restating its claim on affidavit – Plea without proof and proof without plea is no evidence in the eyes of law, thus, the matter dismissed. [Paras 21-23] Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Technical pleas – Manner in which consumer forums must decide the pleas – Plea raised by service providers that the services obtained/goods bought was for a commercial purpose and, thus, the complaint filed on behalf of such persons not maintainable: Held: Such pleas are decided on the manner in which the issues are framed – Unless the burden of proof is properly cast on the relevant party, the consumer forum would not be in a position to arrive at proper decision – Thus, guidance provided on how the issues must be framed and the manner in which the evidence must be appreciated. [Para 19] Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – s. 2(7) – Definition of consumer – Deconstruction of s. 2(7)(i): Held: There are three parts to the definition of a consumer – First part sets out the prerequisites for a person to qualify as a consumer- there must be purchase of goods, for consideration – Second part is an ‘exclusion clause’ [‘carve out’] which has the effect of excluding the person from the definition of a consumer – The carve out applies if the person has obtained goods for the purpose of ‘resale’ or for a ‘commercial purpose’ – Third part is an exception to the exclusion clause, it relates to explanation (a) to s. 2(7) which limits the scope of ‘commercial purpose’, the expression, ‘commercial purpose’ does not include persons who bought goods ‘exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood, by means of self-employment’ – Significance of deconstructing the definition into three parts was for the purpose of explaining on whom lies the onus to prove each of the different parts – Onus of proving the first part-pe
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.