Consumer Protection Act 1986 Onus Of Proving That Service Was Availed For 'Commercial Purpose' Is On Service Provider : Supreme Court
Affirming the decision of the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (“NCDRC”), the bench comprising Justices P.S. Narasimha and Aravind Kumar observed that unless it is proved by the service provider that the goods/services were availed for the commercial purpose by the consumer, the service provider cannot dispute about the maintainability of the consumer complaint.
The Consumer Protection Act 1986 bars the maintainability of the consumer complaint against the service providers if the services are availed by the consumer for the commercial purpose; however, the law carves out an exception that the complaint would be maintainable against the services availed by the consumer for the commercial purpose if the goods/services are availed by the consumer 'exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood, by means of self-employment'.
The first part of the definition puts the onus of proving that the person had bought goods/availed services for consideration, on the complainant/consumer himself.
The second part carves out an exception that goods purchased or services availed for commercial purposes are not covered under the Act. The onus of proving this fact is on the service provider and not the complainant.
"The carve out clause, in the second part, is invoked by the service providers to exclude the complainants from availing benefits under the Act. The onus of proving that the person falls within the carve out must necessarily rest on the service provider and not the complainant. This is in sync with the general principle embodied in Section 101 and 102 of the Evidence Act that 'one who pleads must prove'. 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. Further, it cannot be forgotten that the Consumer Protection Act is a consumer-friendly and beneficial legislation intended to address grievances of consumers. Moreover, a negative burden cannot be placed on the complainant to show that the service available was not for a commercial purpose."
Once, the service provider satisfies the second part, then the third part of the definition puts an onus on the complainant to prove that the services availed by him weren't for the commercial purpose but exclusively to earn his livelihood.
"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, i.e. the Explanation (a) to Section 2(7) – to show that the service was obtained exclusively for the purpose of earning its livelihood by means of self- employment."
Case Title: SHRIRAM CHITS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED EARLIER KNOWN AS SHRIRAM CHITS (K) PVT. LTD VERSUS RAGHACHAND ASSOCIATES
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 368