As per the case facts, the appellant challenged lower forum judgments that found a deficiency of service. The core of the dispute was whether the service obtained by the respondent ... was for a "commercial purpose" or if the respondent qualified as a "consumer" by obtaining the service exclusively for earning a livelihood through self-employment. The appeal to the Supreme Court sought to overturn the findings of deficiency of service and the classification of the respondent as a consumer. The question arose whether the respondent was indeed a "consumer" and if the service obtained was for a "commercial purpose" or primarily for their livelihood through self-employment, which would determine the validity of their deficiency of service complaint. Finally, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the concurrent findings of the three lower forums regarding the proven deficiency of service. The Court underscored that the appellant (service provider) failed to prove that the service was obtained for a commercial purpose, thus preventing the burden of proof from shifting to the complainant to demonstrate it was for self-employment. The Court chose not to re-evaluate the merits of the case given the consistent findings from previous forums.