In Brief
A registered chit fund company challenged a consumer complaint seeking refund of subscription amounts from a stopped chit scheme. The company argued the complaint was not maintainable because the subscriber obtained the service for a "commercial purpose," excluding them from consumer protections. The Supreme Court held that the burden to prove commercial purpose rests on the service provider, not the complainant, applying the preponderance of probabilities standard. Only if the service provider succeeds can the complainant then prove the service was for earning livelihood through self-employment. As the company provided mere pleading without evidence, the appeals were dismissed and the refund upheld.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.