Prolonged Pre-Trial Detention and Right to Liberty Cannot Be Ignored” - Punjab & Haryana High Court Emphasizes Bail as the Rule Taxation Law | Andhra Pradesh High Court Rules Hotel’s Expenditures on Carpets, Mattresses, and Lampshades are Deductible as Current Expenditures Orissa High Court Upholds Disengagement of Teacher for Unauthorized Absence and Suppression of Facts In Disciplined Forces, Transfers are an Administrative Necessity; Judicial Interference is Limited to Cases of Proven Mala Fide: Patna High Court Act Of Judge, When Free From Oblique Motive, Cannot Be Questioned: Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes Disciplinary Proceedings Against Additional Collector Registration Act | False Statements in Conveyance Documents Qualify for Prosecution Under Registration Act: Kerala High Court When Junior is Promoted, Senior’s Case Cannot be Deferred Unjustly: Karnataka High Court in Sealed Cover Promotion Dispute Medical Training Standards Cannot Be Lowered, Even for Disability’ in MBBS Admission Case: Delhi HC Suspicion, However Strong It May Be, Cannot Take Place Of Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Acquittal No Detention Order Can Rely on Grounds Already Quashed: High Court Sets Precedent on Preventive Detention Limits Tenant's Claims of Hardship and Landlord's Alternate Accommodations Insufficient to Prevent Eviction: Allahabad HC Further Custodial Detention May Not Be Necessary: Calcutta High Court Grants Bail in Murder Case Citing Lack of Specific Evidence High Court, As A Constitutional Court Of Record, Possesses The Inherent Power To Correct Its Own Record: Bombay High Court A Fresh Section 11 Arbitration Petition Without Liberty Granted at the Time of Withdrawal is Not Maintainable: Supreme Court; Principles of Order 23 CPC Applied Adult Sexual Predators Ought Not To Be Dealt With Leniency Or Extended Misplaced Sympathy: Sikkim High Court Retired Employee Entitled to Interest on Delayed Leave Encashment Despite Absence of Statutory Provision: Delhi HC Punjab and Haryana High Court Grants Full Disability Pension and Service Element for Life to Army Veteran Taxation Law | Director Must Be Given Notice to Prove Lack of Negligence: Telangana High Court Quashes Order Against Director in Tax Recovery Case High Court of Uttarakhand Acquits Defendants in High-Profile Murder Case, Cites Lack of Evidence In Cases of Financial Distress, Imposing A Mandatory Deposit Under Negotiable Instruments Act May Jeopardize Appellant’s Right To Appeal: Rajasthan High Court

No Evidence to Probabilise Claim, Plea Without Proof Is No Evidence In Law - Service Obtained Not for Commercial Purpose, Consumer Entitled to Protection under Consumer Protection Act: Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Supreme Court dismissed appeals by Shriram Chits (India) Pvt. Ltd., addressing a significant point of contention under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 concerning whether a service obtained for a “commercial purpose” excludes a party from being considered a ‘consumer’.

At the core of the legal battle was whether the complainant, who participated in a chit fund, was a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The service provider argued that the complainant obtained the service for a commercial purpose, thereby not qualifying as a consumer entitled to protections under the Act.

The complainant subscribed to a chit fund operated by Shriram Chits but faced issues when the company ceased operations and refused to refund the accumulated amount. Initially addressing this grievance under the Chit Funds Act, 1982, subsequent legal advice and a High Court directive shifted the battleground to the consumer forum, which ultimately ruled in favor of the complainant. The matter escalated through various legal forums, culminating in the Supreme Court’s review.

Jurisdiction and Consumer Status: The Supreme Court scrutinized the applicability of the Consumer Protection Act to the complainant, notably the definition of ‘consumer’ and the exclusion applied to services obtained for commercial purposes. The justices corrected the lower courts’ oversight regarding the complainant’s status, focusing on the necessity of proving the commercial intent of the service usage by the provider before excluding the complainant from the Act’s protection.

Evidence and Burden of Proof: The Court elaborated on the allocation of the burden of proof, clarifying that the service provider must initially prove the commercial purpose of the service. Only if this burden is met does the requirement shift back to the complainant to demonstrate that the service was for personal livelihood.

Legal Interpretations and Precedents: The judgment referenced multiple precedents and dissected the legislative intent behind the Consumer Protection Act’s amendments, underscoring the evolution of the term ‘commercial purpose’ and its implications on contemporary consumer protection jurisprudence.

Decision The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decisions of the lower forums. The Court affirmed that the service provider failed to adequately demonstrate that the services were availed for a commercial purpose. As such, the complainant retains their consumer status and is entitled to protection under the Consumer Protection Act.

Date of Decision: May 10, 2024

Shriram Chits (India) Private Limited vs. Raghachand Associates

Similar News