Consumer Protection - Maintainability of Complaint - Definition of Consumer - Service obtained for Commercial Purpose - Onus of Proof - Burden of Proof - Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Main Content:

1. Background:

• Appellant challenges order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC).
• Complainant redressed grievance initially at District Forum and subsequently at State Forum and NCDRC.

2. Parties Involved:

• Appellant: Registered Chit Fund company engaged in Chit business.
• Respondent (Complainant): Subscribed to chits with appellant.

3. Allegations:

• Complainant alleges illegal termination of chit fund business by appellant and non-refund of subscription amount.
• Seeks direction for refund along with future interest.

4. Objection Raised by Appellant:

• Preliminary objection that complaint not maintainable as complainant does not qualify as a ‘consumer’ under Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
• Claims service obtained for commercial purpose.

5. Issue Framed by District Forum:

• Whether complainant proved deficiency in service?
• Relief entitled to complainant?

6. Forum Decisions:

• District Forum finds deficiency in service, orders refund with interest.
• State Forum and NCDRC uphold District Forum’s decision on merits but do not address maintainability issue.

7. Issue for Consideration:

• Whether service obtained by complainant was for a commercial purpose?

8. Definition of Consumer under Consumer Protection Act, 1986:

• Three-part definition:
  • Jurisdictional prerequisites for consumer.
  • Exclusion clause for persons obtaining goods/services for commercial purpose.
  • Exception to exclusion clause for self-employment livelihood.

9. Burden of Proof:

• Onus to prove first part on complainant.
• Onus to prove exclusion clause on service provider.
• Standard of proof: Preponderance of probabilities.

10. Analysis of Plea Raised by Appellant: - Appellant must prove service obtained for commercial purpose. - Complainant not required to prove service obtained for self-employment livelihood unless appellant proves commercial purpose.

11. Conclusion: - Appellant failed to prove service obtained for commercial purpose. - Three Forums concurred on deficiency of service. - Appeals dismissed.