Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 17616

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

WPC No. 612 of 2022

1 - Vritpal Sindhu S/o Shri Mitrasen Sindhu Aged About 56 Years Managing / Authorised Partner - M.S. And Sons, Resident Of 53-55, Section 14, Sindhu Bhawan, Rohtak, Haryana- 124001.

2 - Veersen Sindhu S/o Shri Mitrasen Sindhu Aged About 61 Years Managing / Authorised Partner - M.S. And Sons, Gevra Project, Dipka 1, Garud Nagar Dipka, Korba District, Chhattisgarh - 495452.

--- Petitioner(s)

versus

1 - Amit Agrawal S/o Shri Naresh Agrawal Aged About 34 Years C/o Maa Banjari Enterprises And Logistics, Priyadarshi Complex, Chhatamuda By- Pass, Tehsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh – 496001.

2 - Dev Sindhu Managing / Authorised Partner - M.S. And Sons, Plot No. 11, Khand No. 251/664, Himgir Road, Kanika, Sundargarh District Odisha - 770075.

3 - Pradeep Mor Managing / Authorised Partner - M.S. And Sons, Plot No. 11, Block No. 251/664, Himgir Road, Kanika, Sundargarh District Odisha - 770075.

4 - Abhimanyu Sindhu Managing / Authorised Partner - M.S. And Sons, Post Khanda Kheri, Tehsil Hansi, Hisar District Haryana., District : Hisar, Haryana

5 - Rudra Sen Sindhu Managing / Authorised Partner - M.S. And Sons, Sindhu Tradelinks Limited, 129 Transport Centre, Rohtak Road, Pubjabi Bagh, New Delhi 110035

6 - Satyapal Sindhu Managing / Authorised Partner - M.S. And Sons, Sindhu Tradelinks Limited, 129 Transport Centre, Rohtak Road, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi - 110035.

7 - Parameshwari Sindhu Managing / Authorised Partner - M.S. And Sons, Post Khanda Kheri, Tehsil Hansi, Hisar District Haryana.

--- Respondent(s)

WPC No. 664 of 2022

1 - Vritpal Sindhu S/o Shri Mitrasen Sindhu Aged About 56 Years Managing/authorised Partner- M.S. And Sons, R/o 53-55, Section 14, Sindhu Bhawan, Rohtak, Haryana 124001.

2 - Veersen Sindhu S/o Shri Mitrasen Sindhu Aged About 61 Years Managing/authorised Partner- M.S. And Sons, Gevra Project, Dipka 1, Garud Nagar Dipka, Korba District, Chhattisgarh-495452.

---Petitioner(s)

Versus

1 - Prateek Agrawal S/o Shri Vijay Kumar Agrawal Aged About 32 Years Partner Trishul Enterprises, R/o Gandhi Ganj, Tehsil And District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 496001.

2 - Dev Sindhu Managing/authorised Partner- M.S. And Sons, Plot No. 11, Khand No. 251/664, Himgir Road, Kanika, Sundargarh District, Odisha- 770075.

3 - Pradeep More Managing/authorised Partner- M.S. And Sons, Plot No. 11, Block No. 251/664, Himgir Raod, Kanika, Sundergarh District, Odisha- 770075.

4 - Abhimanyu Sindhu Managing/authorised Partner- M.S. And Sons, Post Khanda Kheri, Tehsil Hansi, Hisar District Haryana.

5 - Rudra Sen Sindhu Managing/ Authorised Partner/ M.S. And Sons, Sindhu Tradelinks Limited, 129 Transport Centre, Rohtak Road, Pubjabi Bagh, New Delhi 110035.

6 - Satyapal Sindhu Managing/authorised Partner- M.S. And Sons, Sindhu Tradelinks Limited, 129 Transport Centre, Rohtak Road, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi- 110035.

7 - Parameshwari Sindhu Managing/authorised Partner- M.S. And Sons, Post- Khanda Kheri, Tehsil Hansi, Hisar District, Haryana.

--- Respondent(s)

For Petitioners : Shri Amrito Das, Advocate.

For Respondent No.1 : Ms. Aprajita Pandey appears on behalf of Shri Harshwardhan Agrawal, Advocates.

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

Order on Board

25/04/2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Amrito Das
For the Respondents: Aprajita Pandey, Harshwardhan Agrawal

A dispute arising out of a commercial transaction between business entities for the provision of services is not a consumer dispute. Consumer forums lack jurisdiction to adjudicate such recovery claims, and courts may exercise writ jurisdiction when a question of statutory competence goes to the root of the matter.

Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Sections 2(5), 2(6), 2(7) and 35(1) - Maintainability of complaint - Commercial purpose - If a party initiates a business arrangement for profit or gain, they do not fall under the definition of 'consumer' - Such commercial transactions are outside the purview of the Act - Remedy for recovery of outstanding dues in such cases lies before a civil court. (Paras 32, 35, 38, 39)

(B) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ jurisdiction - Alternative remedy - Mere availability of an alternative remedy does not operate as an absolute bar to the maintainability of a writ petition - Writ jurisdiction can be exercised where a petition raises a pure question of law regarding the jurisdiction of a subordinate forum or where the impugned order is passed in violation of principles of natural justice and is clearly without jurisdiction. (Paras 27, 28, 30)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners and the respondent entered into a business agreement regarding transportation logistics for a coal-handling firm. Following a dispute over outstanding payments for these services, the respondent filed a consumer complaint for recovery of funds and compensation. The petitioners challenged the maintainability of the complaint, arguing that the transaction was commercial and the respondent did not qualify as a 'consumer' under the Act.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that the transaction between the parties was purely commercial, being related to the operational requirements of a business entity. As the respondent sought remuneration for services provided within a commercial framework, they do not meet the statutory definition of a 'consumer'. Consequently, the forum lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

Issues: Whether a claim for recovery of money arising out of a commercial arrangement for transportation services is maintainable as a consumer complaint, and whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition despite the existence of an alternative statutory remedy.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a dispute emanating from a commercial transaction, where the complainant is not a consumer but a business entity involved in professional services, falls outside the jurisdiction of consumer protection forums. Since the question of jurisdiction strikes at the root of the matter and is a pure question of law, the court exercised its discretionary writ jurisdiction over the availability of an alternative appellate remedy.

Result: Petitions allowed. The impugned orders are set aside.

1. Since dispute involved in both the petitions is common, they are being disposed of by this common order.

2. WPC No.612 of 2022 has been filed against the order dated 27.10.2021 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raigarh C.G. in case No.CC/2020/172 whereby the petitioners and Respondent Nos.2 to 7 were directed to pay total amount of Rs.24,61,852/- to the Respondent No.1 inclusive of Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.1,000/- towards litigation expenses.

3. Similarly WPC No.664 of 2022 has been filed against the order dated 27.10.2021 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Raigarh Chhattisgarh in case No.CC/2020/171 whereby the petitioners and Respondent Nos.2 to 7 were directed to pay total amount of Rs.45,91,070 to the Respondent No.1.

4. The said amount was directed to be paid within a period of 45 days from the date of impugned order.

5. For the purposes of disposal, facts pleaded in WPC No.612 of 2022 will be referred to. The petitioners are the Managing Partners of the firm which goes by the name of M.S. & Sons. The said firm is in the business of coal handling and has its washery/depot located at Hemgir, Odisha. From 04.09.2018 to 19.03.2019, coal was transported from washery / depot of M.S. & Sons, which is at Hemgir, Odisha to TRN ACB (India) Ltd. at Navapara, Gharghoda, Raigarh. In the said period, the Respondent No.1 provided transportation logistics to the petitioners for which the Respondent No.1 was to receive the corresponding consideration amount. For the aforementioned transportation logistics provided by the respondent No.1, the respondent No.1 purportedly furnished invoices to the petitioners from time to time. Respondent No.1 allege that the invoices collectively amounted to INR 66,44,798/- out of which, INR 41,88,964/- has been paid by the petitioners. Consequently, an amount of INR 24,55,852/- purportedly stood outstanding. On 01.10.2020, the respondent No.1, through his Advocates, issued a notice to the petitioners which inter alia called upon the petitioners to pay within 7 days, the outstanding amount of INR 24,55,852/- along with INR 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh only) as compensation for damages. Pursuant to the notice dated 01.10.2020, in order to recover the outstanding amount from the petitioners, respondent preferred a complaint dated 19.10.2020 (hereinafter referred to as "Complaint") before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raigarh under Section 35(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). In the Complaint, the Respondent No.1 prayed inter alia that the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raigarh direct the Petitioners to (a) pay the outstanding amount of INR 24,55,852/- and (b) pay the amount of INR 5,00,000/- as compensation for the respondent being mentally, physically and monetarily aggrieved owing to deprivation of the outstanding amount. On 01.09.2021, the petitioners filed preliminary objections to the Complaint and submitted that in the facts and circumstances and in terms of the Act, the petitioners can neither be classified as a "consumers" as per Section 2(7) of the Act nor as provider of good or services and therefore, the Complaint preferred by present respondent No.1 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raigarh was not a consumer complaint as defined under Section 2(6) of the Act. Additionally, the preliminary objections stated that the arrangement entered into between the entities of petitioners and the respondent No.1 i.e., M.S. & Sons and Maa Banjari Enterprises and Logistics respectively, was commercial in nature and therefore, the instant dispute is not a consumer dispute. In view of the preliminary objections dated 01.09.2021 filed by the present petitioners before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raigarh, a reply was filed on behalf of the respondent on 21.09.2021 denying the contentions of th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

For Petitioners	:	Shri Amrito Das, Advocate.
For Respondent No.1	:	Ms. Aprajita Pandey appears on behalf of Shri Harshwardhan Agrawal, Advocates.

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 17616

Cases Referred (2)