Practice and Procedure – Although the opposite party had not filed its version and may not have participated in the proceedings before the NCDRC, nevertheless, had the right to address final arguments before the NCDRC- ARN Infrastructure India Limited vs Hara Prasad Ghosh CA (Diary) 31182 of 2023
Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Interpretation of the word and expression “Commercial Purpose” – When there is an assertion in the complaint filed before the Consumer Court or Commission that such goods are purchased for earning livelihood, such complaint cannot be nipped at the bud and dismissed. Evidence tendered by parties will have to be evaluated on the basis of pleadings and thereafter conclusion be arrived at. Primarily it has to be seen as to whether the averments made in the complaint would suffice to examine the same on merits and in the event of answer being in the affirmative, it ought to proceed further. On the contrary, if the answer is the negative, such complaint can be dismissed at the threshold. Thus, it would depend on facts and circumstances of each case. There cannot be any defined formula with mathematical precision to examine the claims for non-suiting the complainant on account of such complaint not falling within the definition of the expression ‘consumer’ as defined under Section 2(1)(d) – Rohit Chaudhary vs Vipul Ltd 2023 INSC 807