NDLI: Shriram Chits (india) Private Limited Earlier Known As Shriram Chits (k) Pvt. Ltd Vs. Raghachand Associates

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Maintainability of complaint
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Dismissed
Headnote	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 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-person had bought goods/availed services for a consideration, rests on the complainant himself – Carve out clause, in the second part, is invoked by the service providers to exclude the complainants from availing benefits under the Act – Onus of proving that the person falls within the carve out must necessarily rest on the service provider and not the complainant – Since it is always the service provider who pleads that the service was obtained for a commercial purpose, the onus of proving the same would have to be borne by it – Act is a consumer-friendly and beneficial legislation intended to address grievances of consumers – Negative burden cannot be placed on the complainant to show that the service available was not for a commercial purpose. [Paras 15, 20]
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar
Neutral Citation	2024 INSC 403
Petitioner	Shriram Chits (india) Private Limited Earlier Known As Shriram Chits (k) Pvt. Ltd
Respondent	Raghachand Associates
SCR	[2024] 6 S.C.R. 214
Judgement Date	2024-05-10
Case Number	6301

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Shriram Chits (india) Private Limited Earlier Known As Shriram Chits (k) Pvt. Ltd Vs. Raghachand Associates

Please Log-in to view this content

Amd Industries Limited (earlier Known As M/s. Ashoka Metal Decor Pvt. Ltd.) Vs. Commissioner of Trade Tax, Lucknow & Anr

Perumal Vs. Janaki

Shriram Chits and Investment (p) Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Ors.

M/s. Jaiprakash Industries Ltd. (presently Known As M/s. Jaiprakash Associates Ltd.) Vs. Delhi Development Authority

B. K. Educational Services Private Limited Vs. Parag Gupta and Associates

Indus Biotech Private Limited Vs. Kotak India Venture (offshore) Fund (earlier Known As Kotak India Venture Limited) & Ors.

Vodafone Idea Ltd. (earlier Known As Vodafone Mobile Services Limited) Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 26 (2) & Anr.

Kridhan Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (now Known As Krish Steel and Trading Pvt Ltd) Vs. Venkatesan Sankaranarayan & Ors.

Khoday Distilleries Ltd. (now Known As Khoday India Limited) and Others Vs. Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Ltd., Kollegal (under Liquidation) Represented By The Liquidator

Shriram Chits (india) Private Limited Earlier Known As Shriram Chits (k) Pvt. Ltd Vs. Raghachand Associates

Shriram Chits (india) Private Limited Earlier Known As Shriram Chits (k) Pvt. Ltd Vs. Raghachand Associates

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Amd Industries Limited (earlier Known As M/s. Ashoka Metal Decor Pvt. Ltd.) Vs. Commissioner of Trade Tax, Lucknow & Anr

Perumal Vs. Janaki

Shriram Chits and Investment (p) Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Ors.

M/s. Jaiprakash Industries Ltd. (presently Known As M/s. Jaiprakash Associates Ltd.) Vs. Delhi Development Authority

B. K. Educational Services Private Limited Vs. Parag Gupta and Associates

Indus Biotech Private Limited Vs. Kotak India Venture (offshore) Fund (earlier Known As Kotak India Venture Limited) & Ors.

Vodafone Idea Ltd. (earlier Known As Vodafone Mobile Services Limited) Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 26 (2) & Anr.

Kridhan Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (now Known As Krish Steel and Trading Pvt Ltd) Vs. Venkatesan Sankaranarayan & Ors.

Khoday Distilleries Ltd. (now Known As Khoday India Limited) and Others Vs. Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Ltd., Kollegal (under Liquidation) Represented By The Liquidator

Shriram Chits (india) Private Limited Earlier Known As Shriram Chits (k) Pvt. Ltd Vs. Raghachand Associates