Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. After hearing the submissions of both parties, the State Commission dismissed the complainant on preliminary ground of maintainability by holding that the complainants had booked the studio apartment under an assured rental/return scheme and that the transaction was inherently commercial in nature, because the very foundation of the booking was the promise of assured monthly rent of 8,000/-, through assured lease arrangements third parties, which clearly demonstrated that the dominant purpose of the transaction was investment and profit generation rather than personal residential use. The State Commission further held that earning assured rental income does not amount to earning livelihood by means of self-employment within the meaning of the proviso to Section 2(1 )(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and that the complainants had failed to place on record any material to establish that the unit was booked exclusively for such purpose. It was observed that the reliefs claimed by the complainants themselves, including recovery of assured monthly rent, reinforced the commercial character of the transaction. Accordingly, the State Commission concluded that the complainants did not fall within the definition of "consumer" under the Act and, on this preliminary ground, dismissed the consumer complaint as not maintainable. The order of the State Commission is reproduced herein below:

4. The appellant/complainant, being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 22.11.2021 passed by the Delhi State Commission, whereby the consumer complaint was dismissed at the threshold on the preliminary ground of non-maintainability by holding that the appellant does not fall within the definition of "consumer" under Section 2(1 )(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, without adjudicating the matter on merits and without appreciating the pleadings, evidence, and settled legal position governing assured return schemes and the concept of "commercial purpose", has challenged the said order as being illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law, and based on erroneous appreciation of facts and law, and has therefore filed the present First Appeal before this Commission on 04.03.2022, inter alia, on the following grounds, which are urged without prejudice to one another:
6. The contention of the Learned Counsel for the Opposite Party that the Complainants are not 'Consumer' and that they had booked the subject flat for earning profits is completely unsustainable in the light of the judgement of this Commission in Kavita Ahuja v. Shipra Estates (2016) 1 CPJ 31, in which the principle laid down is that the onus of establishing that the Complainant was dealing in real estate i.e. in the purchase and sale of plots/flats in his normal course of business to earn profits, shifts to the Opposite Party, which in the instant case they had failed to discharge by filing any documentary evidence to establish their case. Therefore we are of the considered view that the Complainants fall under the definition of 'Consumer' as defined under Section 2 (1)(d) of the Act.
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 fora 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 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.