The Supreme Court, ruled that commercial disputes aimed at profit cannot be adjudicated under the Consumer Protection Act. The court highlighted that the complainant’s transaction was a business investment rather than a consumer service, which falls outside the scope of consumer laws. The legal heirs of a deceased partner cannot be held liable unless they explicitly assume the firm’s liabilities. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the orders of the District, State, and National Consumer Commissions.

1. Introduction

• The case involves an appeal by Annapurna B. Uppin and others challenging the orders of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), which upheld decisions from the lower consumer forums, directing them to jointly and severally pay Rs. 5 lakhs plus interest to the respondent.

2. Background of the Case

• The respondent claimed to have invested Rs. 5 lakhs in a partnership firm, M/s Annapurneshwari Cotton Co., with the expectation of earning 18% interest annually. The dispute arose when the firm failed to repay the investment upon maturity, leading the respondent to file a complaint alleging deficiency in service.

3. Proceedings Before Consumer Forums

• The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (DCDRF) initially ruled in favor of the respondent, holding the appellants liable. The matter was remanded twice by the State Commission, but each time the lower forum reaffirmed its decision. Ultimately, the NCDRC dismissed the revision petition, prompting the current appeal.

4. Supreme Court’s Observations

• The Court emphasized that the investment made by the respondent was a commercial transaction aimed at earning profit, disqualifying it from being treated as a consumer dispute under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
• It was also noted that the complainant himself was a partner in the firm according to a registered partnership deed dated 27.05.1996, making the nature of the dispute inherently commercial.
• The legal heirs of a deceased partner are not automatically liable for the firm’s debts unless there is evidence that they assumed the firm’s assets and liabilities.

5. Court’s Conclusion

• The Supreme Court concluded that the consumer complaint was not maintainable due to its commercial nature and the respondent’s status as a partner. The orders passed by the lower consumer forums were set aside, and the complaint was dismissed.

6. Future Remedies

• The Court left open the option for the respondent to pursue remedies in a competent civil forum as per applicable laws.