SHRIRAM CHITS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED EARLIER KNOWN AS SHRIRAM CHITS (K) PVT. LTD versus RAGHACHAND ASSOCIATES
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 214, Supreme Court of India, 2024
Outcome: Dismissed (Dismissed)
Segment: Facts
* Author
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 214 : 2024 INSC 403
Shriram Chits (India) Private Limited 
Earlier Known as Shriram Chits (K) Pvt. Ltd 
v. 
Raghachand Associates
(Civil Appeal No. 6301 of 2024)
10 May 2024 
[Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Aravind Kumar,* JJ.]
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
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
215
Shriram Chits (India) Private Limited Earlier Known as 
Shriram Chits (K) Pvt. Ltd v. Raghachand Associates
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
216
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
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]
Case Law Cited
Laxmi Engineering Works [1995] 3 SCR 174 : (1995) 
3 SCC 583; Leelavathi Kirtilal Medical Trust v. Unique 
Shanti Developers [2019] 14 SCR 563 : (2020) 2 SCC 
265; Cheema Engineering Services [1996] Supp. 8 
SCR 340 : (1997) 1 SCC 131; Paramount Digital Lab 
(2018) 14 SCC 81 – referred to.
List of Acts
Consumer Protection Act, 1986; Evidence Act, 1872.
List of Keywords
Maintainability of complaint; Deficiency of service; Service availed 
by complainant for commercial purpose; Definition of ‘person’; 
Refund of amount with interest; Service providers; Expression 
‘complaint’; Definition of consumer; Onus to prove; Standard 
of proof; Preponderance of probabilities’; Earning livelihood by 
means of self-employment; Technical pleas; Burden of proof; 
Deconstruction of s. 2(7)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act; 
Exclusion clause’ [‘carve out’]; ‘resale’ or for ‘commercial purpose’; 
‘One who pleads must prove’;
Consumer-friendly and beneficial 
legislation; Negative burden.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil appeal No. 6301 of 2024 
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.03.2021 of the National 
Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in RP No. 
831 of 2020
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 6302, 6303, 6304, 6305, 6306, 6307 and 6308 of 
2024
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
217
Shriram Chits (India) Private Limited Earlier Known as 
Shriram Chits (K) Pvt. Ltd v. Raghachand Associates
Appearances for Parties
Shailesh Madiyal, Sr. Adv., Vaibhav Sabharwal, Ms. Divija Mahajan, 
Ms. Sunidhi Hegde, Ms. Sakshi Banga, Ms. Amisha Devi, Mrigank 
Prabhakar, Advs. for the Appellant.
Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Adv., Ms. Anindita Mitra, Ms. Jhanvi 
Dubey, Advs. for the Respondent.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Aravind Kumar, J. 
1.	
Leave granted. 
2.	
The appellant (‘OP’/‘service provider’, used interchangeably) has 
challenged the order dated 10.03.2021 of the National Consumer 
Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (NCDRC) in these 
appeals. The respondent (complainant) had successfully redressed 
its consumer grievance, originally, before the Principal Consumer 
Disputes Redressal for Bangalore Urban District, at Bangalore 
(‘District Forum’). The service provider was unsuccessful in upsetting 
the order of the District Forum before the State Consumer Disputes 
Redressal Commission, Bangalore (‘State Forum’) as well as the 
NCDRC. That is how this matter has come before us. 
3.	
The service provider is a registered Chit Fund company engaged in 
Chit business. Admittedly, the complainant had subscribed to certain 
chits in the said business. The subscription was made in the chit 
group 53005/Ticket No.9 for a chit value of Rs.1,00,000/- payable at 
the rate of Rs.2500/- per month for a period of 40 months. 
4.	
It is
the case of the complainant that the OP had illegally stopped 
the chit business in the year 1996. The complainant requested 
the OP to repay the chit amount deposited until stoppage of the 
business. The OP refused to re-pay the subscription amount 
since, according to it, the complainant owed certain dues to it and 
therefore, it adjusted the subscription amount against pending dues 
of the complainant. 
5.	
Initially, the complainant sought to redress its grievance relating 
to non-refund of the subscription amount, before the authority
218
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
constituted under the Chit Funds Act 1982.1 Thereafter, the OP filed 
WP No.22568/2012 with 9 other connected writ petitions against the 
order of the Additional Registrar. Whereas the Complainant also filed 
WP No.17045/2014 with 9 other connected writ petitions questioning 
the finding with regards to the maintainability under the Chit Funds 
Act. On 16.11.2015, the High Court directed the complainant to 
approach the Consumer Forum and held that said cases were not 
maintainable under the Chit Funds Act.
6.	
It is against this background that the complaint comes to be filed 
before the District Forum alleging that the illegal termination of the 
chit fund business and consequent non-refund of the subscription 
amount, resulted in deficiency of service. The prayer in the complaint 
was for a direction to be issued to the OP to refund Rs.18,750/- along 
with future interest at the rate of 18% p.a.
7.	
In the written version, the OP, apart from contesting the claim on 
merits, raised a preliminary objection that the complaint is not 
maintainable since the complainant does not qualify the definition 
of a ‘consumer’. According to the OP, the service obtained by 
the complainant was for a commercial purpose, and by that fact, 
the complainant would stand excluded from availing any remedy 
under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. To demonstrate that the 
service was obtained for a commercial purpose, the OP relied on 
two
circumstances: (a) the statement in the complainant that there 
was an ‘understanding between complainant and opposite party to 
promote chit business’; (b) findings2 of an internal audit conducted 
by the OP. 
1	
The complainant had filed 10 cases before the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies i.e., Dispute 
No.1062/2004-05 to 1071/2004-05, for recovery of adjusted amount, whereunder the Assistant Registrar 
passed an award and directed the OP to pay the amount to complainant. Against the said order OP 
unsuccessfully challenged the orders in appeals before Additional Registrar of Co-operative Societies, 
Aliaskar Road, Bangalore, in appeal No.33/CAP/2009-10 to No.42/CAP/2009-10. The Additional 
Registrar directed the opposite party to pay the award amount on the ground that said chit groups did not 
come under the Chit Fund Act. 
2	
As per the Internal Audit, the Complainant held 1023 prized chits, and 1043 non-prized chits. The report 
also mentions various correspondences between the complainant and OP with regards to the increasing 
disparity between the total liability of the fund, and the paid-up value of the non-prized chits. As per the 
audit report, the balance liability amounted to Rs. 1.86 crores. It was stated that owing non-payment of 
outstanding arrears, the foreman in accordance with Section 28 and Section 29 of the Chit Fund Act is 
bound to remove the defaulted non-prized subscriber to keep the chit running, hence the defaulted non-
prized
tickets maintained by Complainant were removed, and the paid amounts were adjusted against 
arrears in the prized chits.
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
219
Shriram Chits (India) Private Limited Earlier Known as 
Shriram Chits (K) Pvt. Ltd v. Raghachand Associates
8.	
Against the said pleadings available on record, the District Forum 
proceeded to frame the following issue: 
I.	
Whether the Complainant has proved the alleged deficiency 
in service by the Opposite Party? 
II.	
If so, to what relief the Complainant is entitled?
9.	
There was no specific issue framed on the preliminary question as 
to whether the complainant fell within the definition of consumer as 
understood under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act of 1986. However, 
the District Forum did address itself, though incorrectly, to the 
objection of the OP that the complaint was not maintainable. 
Instead of examining whether the service availed on behalf of the 
complainant was for a commercial purpose, the District Forum 
determined whether the complainant fell within the definition of 
a “person” as defined in Section 2 (1)(m) of the Act. On merits, it 
found that there was, in fact, ‘deficiency in service’ and ordered 
for refund of the claimed amount with interest of 18% p.a.
10.	 In appeal, the State Forum has cursorily found that the District Forum 
was correct in concluding that there was deficiency in service, on 
merits. Nothing has been said, however, as regards the challenge 
to the maintainability of the complaint even though a specific ground 
was taken in the memorandum of appeal towards that end. 
11.	 The NCDRC has agreed with the
State Forum and District Forum 
on the merits of the issue and found no reason to interfere with the 
‘well appraised detailed order’ of the District Forum. It noted that 
there was no necessity to reappreciate the evidence de novo since 
the forums below had properly appreciated the issue in dispute. 
On the maintainability issue, the NCDRC appears to have mirrored 
the approach of the District Forum. Instead of examining whether 
the service obtained by the complainant was for a ‘commercial 
purpose’, it examined the question of whether the complainant 
falls within the definition of ‘person’. Neither was such an objection 
raised by the OP in the version originally submitted before the 
District Forum nor was such a contention orally taken before the 
NCDRC. We fail to understand how the NCDRC failed to grasp 
the exact nature of the maintainability challenge. Be that as it may. 
12.	 It is against the above backdrop that we are called upon to determine 
the present lis. Instead of remanding the matter back to the Consumer
220
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Forum we intend to decide the maintainability challenge here itself. 
The question that has eluded three judicial forums has now to be 
settled once and for all. That question simply is: Whether the service 
obtained by the complainant was for a commercial purpose? 
13.	 Section 2 (7) of the Act defines a consumer to mean: 
Section 2 (7) “consumer” means any person who— 
(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been 
paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or 
under any system of deferred payment and includes 
any user of such goods other than the person who 
buys such goods for consideration paid or promised 
or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system 
of deferred payment, when such use is made with 
the approval of such person, but does not include a 
person who obtains such goods for resale or for any 
commercial purpose; or 
(ii) hires or avails of any service for a consideration 
which has been paid or promised or partly paid and 
partly promised, or under any system of deferred 
payment and includes any beneficiary of such 
service other than the person who hires or avails of 
the services for consideration paid or promised, or 
partly paid and partly promised, or under any system 
of deferred payment, when such services are availed 
of with the approval of the first mentioned person, 
but does not include a person who avails of such 
service for any commercial purpose.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this clause,— 
(a) the expression “commercial purpose” does not 
include use by a person of goods bought and used 
by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his 
livelihood, by means of self-employment;
(b) the expressions “buys any goods” and “hires 
or avails any services” includes offline or online 
transactions through electronic means or by 
teleshopping or direct selling or multi-level marketing;
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
221
Shriram Chits (India) Private Limited Earlier Known as 
Shriram Chits (K) Pvt. Ltd v. Raghachand Associates
14.	 The provision as it stands now (as extracted above) was not how 
it appeared when it was grafted in the original Act. The definition of 
‘consumer’ has undergone textual amendments in 1993 and in 2002. 
For ease of reference, the evolutionary history of the provision from 
its origin until the 2019 Act is captured in the table below: 
Consumer 
Protection Act 
1986
The Consumer 
Protection 
(Amendment) 
Act, 1993
The Consumer 
Protection 
(Amendment) 
Act, 2002
Consumer 
Protection Act 
2019
“consumer” 
means any 
person who,— 
(i) buys any 
goods for a 
consideration 
which has 
been paid or 
promised or 
partly paid 
and partly 
promised, 
or under 
any system 
of deferred 
payment and 
includes any 
user of such 
goods other 
than the 
person who 
buys such 
goods for 
consideration 
paid or 
promised or 
partly paid 
or partly 
promised, 
or under 
any system 
of deferred 
payment when 
such use is 
made with the 
approval of 
such person, 
but does not 
include a 
person
“consumer” 
means any 
person who,— 
(i) buys any 
goods for a 
consideration 
which has been 
paid or promised 
or partly paid and 
partly promised, 
or under any 
system of 
deferred payment 
and includes 
any user of such 
goods other than 
the person who 
buys such goods 
for consideration 
paid or promised 
or partly paid or 
partly promised, 
or under any 
system
of 
deferred payment 
when such use 
is made with 
the approval of 
such person, 
but does not 
include a person 
who obtains 
such goods for 
resale or for 
any commercial 
purpose; or 
(ii) [hires or 
avails of] any 
services for a 
consideration
“consumer” 
means any 
person who,— 
(i) buys any 
goods for a 
consideration 
which has been 
paid or promised 
or partly paid and 
partly promised, 
or under any 
system of 
deferred payment 
and includes 
any user of such 
goods other than 
the person who 
buys such goods 
for consideration 
paid or promised 
or partly paid or 
partly promised, 
or under any 
system of 
deferred payment 
when such use 
is made with 
the approval of 
such person, 
but does not 
include a person 
who obtains 
such goods for 
resale or for 
any commercial 
purpose; or 
(ii) hires or 
avails of any 
services for a 
consideration
(7) “consumer” 
means any person 
who— 
(i) buys any goods 
for a consideration 
which has been 
paid or promised 
or partly paid and 
partly promised, or 
under any system 
of deferred payment 
and includes 
any user of such 
goods other than 
the person who 
buys such goods 
for consideration 
paid or promised 
or partly paid or 
partly promised, or 
under any system of 
deferred payment, 
when such use 
is made with the 
approval of such 
person, but does 
not include a person 
who obtains such 
goods for resale or 
for any commercial 
purpose; or 
(ii) hires or avails 
of any service for 
a consideration 
which has been
paid or promised 
or partly paid and 
partly promised, or 
under any system of 
deferred payment
222
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
who obtains 
such goods 
for resale 
or for any 
commercial 
purpose; or 
(ii)hires any 
services for a 
consideration 
which has 
been paid or 
promised or 
partly paid 
and partly 
promised, 
or under 
any system 
of deferred 
payment and 
includes any 
beneficiary of 
such services 
other than 
the person 
who hires the 
services for 
consideration 
paid or 
promised, or 
partly paid 
and partly 
promised, 
or under 
any system 
of deferred 
payment, when 
such services 
are availed 
of with the 
approval of the 
first mentioned 
person
which has been 
paid or promised 
or partly paid and 
partly promised, 
or under any 
system of 
deferred payment 
and includes 
any beneficiary 
of such services 
other than the 
person who 
[hires or avails 
of] the services 
for consideration 
paid or promised, 
or partly paid 
and partly 
promised, or 
under any system 
of deferred 
payment, when 
such services are 
availed of with the 
approval of the 
first mentioned 
person. 
Explanation.—
For the 
purposes of 
sub-clause (i), 
“commercial 
purpose” does 
not include use 
by a consumer 
of goods bought 
and used by 
him exclusively 
for the purpose 
of earning his 
livelihood, by 
means of self-
employment;
which has been 
paid or promised 
or partly paid and 
partly promised, 
or under any 
system of 
deferred payment 
and includes 
any beneficiary 
of such services 
other than the 
person who 
hires or avails 
of the services 
for
consideration 
paid or promised, 
or partly paid 
and partly 
promised, or 
under any system 
of deferred 
payment, when 
such services 
are availed 
of with the 
approval of the 
first mentioned 
person but does 
not include a 
person who 
avails of such 
services for 
any commercial 
purpose. 
Explanation.—For 
the purposes 
of this clause, 
“commercial 
purpose” does 
not include use 
by a person of 
goods bought 
and used by him 
and services 
availed by him 
exclusively for 
the purposes 
of earning his 
livelihood by 
means of self-
employment;
and includes any 
beneficiary of such 
service other than 
the person who 
hires or avails of 
the services for 
consideration paid 
or promised, or 
partly paid and 
partly promised, or 
under any system of 
deferred payment, 
when such services 
are availed of with 
the approval of 
the first mentioned 
person, but does 
not include a 
person who avails 
of such service for 
any commercial 
purpose.
Explanation. —For 
the purposes of 
this clause, — 
(a) the expression 
“commercial 
purpose” does 
not include use 
by a person of 
goods bought 
and used by him 
exclusively for the 
purpose of earning 
his livelihood, by 
means of self-
employment; 
(b) the 
expressions “buys 
any goods” and 
“hires or avails 
any services” 
includes offline or 
online transactions 
through electronic 
means or by 
teleshopping or 
direct selling 
or multi-level 
marketing;
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
223
Shriram Chits (India) Private Limited Earlier Known as 
Shriram Chits (K) Pvt. Ltd v. Raghachand Associates
15.	 Structurally, there are three parts to the definition of a consumer. 
We can deconstruct Section 2(7)(i) as a matter of illustration.3 
The first part sets out the jurisdictional prerequisites for a person 
to qualify as a consumer – there must be purchase of goods, for 
consideration4 . The 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’. The third part is an exception to the exclusion clause – it 
relates to Explanation (a) to Section 2(7) which limits the scope 
of ‘commercial purpose’. According to the said explanation, the 
expression, ‘commercial purpose’ does not include persons who 
bought goods ‘exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood, 
by means of self-employment’. The significance of this structural 
break down will be discussed shortly.
16.	 The carve out existed as part of the original enactment. However, 
the Explanation to Section 2(7) was inserted by amendment in 1993. 
17.	 Judicial experience has shown us that the service providers most 
often than not take up a plea in their written version that the service 
obtained/goods bought was for a commercial purpose. For, if they 
succeed in their plea, the complainant is
excluded from availing any 
benefit under the Act. According to Section 11, the District Forum 
has jurisdiction to entertain complaints ‘where the value of the goods 
or services and the compensation, if any, claimed does not exceed 
rupees twenty lakhs’. The expression ‘complaint’ is defined in Section 
2(1)(7)(c) to mean any allegation made in writing by a complainant 
relating to certain enumerated subjects. A complainant is defined 
2(1)(b) to mean a consumer, among other entities. Therefore, to 
file a complaint, one must be a complainant and for one to be a 
complainant, he must be a consumer. If a person fails to come 
within the definition of a consumer, he cannot be a complainant5 
and therefore, such person cannot file a complaint under the Act. 
3	
The logic can be identically extended to Section 2(7)(ii) 
4	
The consideration may have been paid or partly paid or agreed to be paid in future.
5	
Complainant is defined under Section 2 (1) (b) of the Act. A complainant means – (i) a consumer; or (ii) 
any voluntary consumer association registered under the Companies Act,1956 or under any other law for 
the time being in force; or (iii) the Central Government or any State Government, who or which makes a 
complaint.
224
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
18.	 In the facts of the instant case, the OP had raised a plea in its version 
that the complainant does not satisfy the definition of consumer 
since the service was obtained for a commercial purpose. Sri 
Shailesh Madiyal, learned Senior Advocate for the OP has argued 
vehemently that the complainant has not pleaded let alone prove 
that the services availed by it was for securing the livelihood of 
the complainant by means of self-employment. According to Sri 
Shailesh Madiyal, the onus to prove that services were availed 
for earning livelihood rests on the complainant. In support of his 
submission, he has relied on Laxmi Engineering Works – (1995) 
3 SCC 583; Leelavathi Kirtilal Medical Trust v. Unique Shanti 
Developers – (2020) 2 SCC 265; Cheema Engineering Services 
(1997) 1 SCC 131 and; Paramount Digital Lab (2018) 14 SCC 81. 
19.	 Before we deal with the contention of Sri Shailesh Madiyal, it 
would be necessary to set out the manner in which consumer 
forums must decide technical pleas raised by service providers 
to the effect that the services obtained/goods bought was for a 
commercial purpose and, therefore, the complaint filed on behalf 
of such persons are not maintainable. The crucial step in deciding 
such pleas would turn 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. Therefore, we proceed to provide some guidance 
on how the issues must be framed and the manner in which the 
evidence must be appreciated.
20.	 As we have shown above, the definition of consumer has three 
parts. The 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. There can hardly be any 
dispute that the onus of proving the first part i.e. that the person 
had bought goods/availed services for a consideration, rests on 
the complainant himself. 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
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
225
Shriram Chits (India) Private Limited Earlier Known as 
Shriram Chits (K) Pvt. Ltd v. Raghachand Associates
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.6 Moreover, a negative burden cannot be 
placed on the complainant to show that the service available was 
not for a commercial purpose.
21.	 Having held that the onus to prove that the service was obtained for 
a commercial purpose is on the service provider, we may clarify the 
standard of proof that has to be met in order to discharge the onus. 
The standard of proof has to be measured against a ‘preponderance 
of probabilities’. The test to determine whether service obtained 
qualified as a commercial purpose is no longer res integra in view 
of this Court’s decision in Lilavathi v. Kiritlal (supra). Para 19 sets 
out the principles on which it must be determined whether the onus 
of proving ‘commercial purpose’ has been properly discharged by 
the service provider.
22.	 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.
23.	 In this background, we must consider the plea of Sri Shailesh Madiyal 
that the complainant has not pleaded nor proved that the service 
was obtained for earning his livelihood through the means of self-
employment. His argument relates to the third part of the definition 
of consumer. The question of inquiring into the third part will 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. In the facts of this case, the 
OP has merely pleaded in its version that the service was obtained 
6	
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Harsolia Motors and Ors. (2023) 8 SCC 362.
226
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
for a commercial purpose. No evidence has been led to probabilise 
its case other than merely restating its claim on affidavit. It is now 
well too settled that a plea without proof and proof without plea is 
no evidence in the eyes of law. 
24.	 We do not wish to address ourselves to the merits of the issue since 
three Forums have concurred in their finding that there was proved 
deficiency of service. 
25.	 Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals. 
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain 
Result of the case: 
Appeals dismissed.