Holding

A corporate purchaser acquiring software for profit‑oriented business automation does not fall within the definition of “consumer” under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Summary

Poly Medicure Ltd., a company engaged in import‑export of medical devices, bought a software licence from Brillio Technologies to automate its export‑import documentation. The software malfunctioned, and the company filed a consumer complaint seeking a refund, alleging deficiency in service. The State Consumer Commission and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission held that the company was not a “consumer” under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 because the purchase was for a commercial purpose. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the meaning of “person”, the scope of the “commercial purpose” exception, and applied the principles laid down in earlier cases to determine the dominant purpose of the transaction. It concluded that the software was procured to maximise profits by automating business processes, thereby qualifying as a commercial purpose, and that a corporate entity can be a “person” but not a consumer in such a context. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower tribunals’ orders.

Issues considered

Whether a corporate entity purchasing software to automate its business processes qualifies as a “consumer” under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
How to interpret “commercial purpose” and the exception for self‑employment in the definition of consumer.

Legislation cited

Consumer Protection Act, 1986s. 2(1)(d), s. 2(1)(m)

Headnote

Issue for Consideration Whether in respect of the goods purchased/services availed, the appellant would qualify as a “consumer” as defined in s.2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Headnotes† Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – s.2(1)(d) – filed complaint before the State Commission claiming deficiency in service stating that it purchased a software from the respondent but the software did not function properly; sought refund of the entire amount paid to the respondent – State Commission held that the complaint was not

Subjects

ConsumerConsumer Protection Act, 1986Commercial purposeSoftware licenceBusiness automationCorporate entity as consumerSection 2(1)(d)Section 2(1)(m)Deficiency in serviceRefund

Judgment

[2025] 12 S.C.R. 189 : 2025 INSC 1314

M/s Poly Medicure Ltd.
v.
M/s Brillio Technologies Pvt. Ltd
(Civil Appeal No. 6349 of 2024)
13 November 2025
[J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra,* JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Whether in respect of the goods purchased/services availed, the
appellant would qualify as a “consumer” as defined in s.2(1)(d) of
the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Headnotes†
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – s.2(1)(d) – “consumer” –
When not – Complainant-appellant (Company) filed complaint
before the State Commission claiming deficiency in service
stating that it purchased a software from the respondent but
the software did not function properly; sought refund of the
entire amount paid to the respondent – State Commission held
that the complaint was not maintainable as the complainant
was not a “consumer” as per s.2(1)(d) since purchase of
the software license was for a commercial purpose – Order
affirmed by National Commission – Correctness:
Held: Complainant is a commercial entity – The purchase of
goods/services (i.e., software) from the respondent was with
a view to automate the processes of the company which were
linked to generation of profit inasmuch as automation of business
processes is undertaken not just for better management of the
business but to reduce costs and maximise profits – Thus, the
transaction of purchase of goods/services (i.e., software) had a
nexus with generation of profits and, therefore, qua that transaction
the appellant cannot be considered a consumer as defined in
s.2(1)(d) – State Commission as well as the National Commission
were justified in holding that the goods/services purchased/availed
by the appellant were for a commercial purpose and therefore
the appellant is not a “consumer” as per s.2(1)(d). [Paras 27, 28]
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Explanation to s.2(1)(d) –
“Commercial purpose”; “Self-employment” – An activity or

* Author
190 [2025] 12 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

transaction of purchase of goods/services availed, if for a
commercial purpose or personal use – Determination:
Held: The identity of the person making the purchase, or the
value of the transaction, is not conclusive to determine whether
the transaction or activity is for a commercial purpose – What is
to be seen is the dominant intention or dominant purpose for the
transaction i.e. whether it is to facilitate some kind of profit generation
for the purchaser(s) and/or its/ their beneficiary – If it is found that
the dominant purpose behind purchasing goods or services is for
personal use and consumption of the purchaser, or is otherwise
not linked to any commercial activity, the question whether such
purchase is for generating a livelihood by means of self-employment
need not be looked into – However, where the transaction is for a
commercial purpose then it might have to be considered whether
it is for generating livelihood by means of self-employment or not –
There is a difference between a self-employed individual and a
corporation – The goods purchased by a self-employed individual
for self-use for generating livelihood would fall within the explanation
even if activity of that person is to generate profits for the purpose
of its livelihood – But where a company-complainant purchases a
software for automating its processes, the object is to maximise
profits and, therefore, it would not fall within the explanation of
s.2(1)(d) of the 1986 Act. [Paras 16, 18]

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – s.2(1)(d), s.2(1)(m) –
“consumer”; “person”:
Held: Definition of “person” in s.2(1)(m) is inclusive and not
exhaustive – Therefore, even an incorporated company could be
a consumer within the meaning of s.2(1)(d) read with s.2(1)(m) of
the 1986 Act. [Para 14]

Case Law Cited
Virender Singh v. M/s. Darshana Trading Co. through its partner
Sanjay Seth (Dead) & Anr. (Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.5510
of 2020, decided on 18.03.2025) – relied on.
Sunil Kohli and Anr. v. Purearth Infrastructure Ltd. (2020) 12 SCC
235 – distinguished.
Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation and Anr. v. Ashok
Iron Works Private Ltd. [2009] 1 SCR 1109 : (2009) 3 SCC
240 – affirmed.
[2025] 12 S.C.R. 191

M/s Poly Medicure Ltd. v. M/s Brillio Technologies Pvt. Ltd

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Harsolia Motors and Ors. [2023] 3
SCR 448 : (2023) 8 SCC 362 – explained.
Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust v. Unique Shanti Developers and
Ors [2019] 14 SCR 563 : (2020) 2 SCC 265; Shrikant G. Mantri v.
Punjab National Bank [2022] 5 SCR 945 : (2022) 5 SCC 42; Laxmi
Engineering Works v. P.S.G. Industrial Institute [1995] 3 SCR
174 : (1995) 3 SCC 583; Cheema Engineering Services v. Rajan
Singh [1996] 8 Supp. SCR 340 : (1997) 1 SCC 131; Paramount
Digital Colour Lab & Others v. Agfa India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (2018)
14 SCC 81 – referred to.

List of Acts
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

List of Keywords
“Consumer”; Complainant not a consumer as per s.2(1)(d),
Consumer Protection Act, 1986; Purchase of software; Software
license; Commercial purpose; Goods/services purchased/availed
for commercial purpose; Product license to automate processes;
Complainant a commercial entity; Purchase of goods/services
to automate the processes of company; Generation of profit;
Automation of business processes; Better management of business;
Reduction of costs and maximise profits; Transaction of purchase
of goods/services had nexus with generation of profits; Commercial
purpose; Personal use; “Person”.

Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6349 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.06.2020 of the National
Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in FA
No. 1977 of 2019

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Shashank Garg, Divyakant Lahoti, Ms. Kartik Lahoti, Ms. Praveena
Bisht, Ms. Vindhya Mehra, Kumar Vinayakam Gupta, Ms. Mallika
Luthra, Ms. Shreya Gokel, Ms. Nishtha Jain.
Advs. for the Respondent:
Jayant Mehta, Sr. Adv., Ankur Sangal, Ms. Sucheta Roy, Raghu
Vinayak Sinha, M/S. Khaitan & Co..
192 [2025] 12 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

Manoj Misra, J.

1. This appeal arises from Consumer Complaint No. 515 of 2019 filed
by the appellant before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Delhi1. The State Commission, vide its order dated
19.08.2019, held complaint not maintainable as, according to the
State Commission, the complainant (appellant herein) was not a
“consumer” as per Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act,
19862.
2. Aggrieved by the State Commission’s order, the appellant filed First
Appeal No. 1977 of 2019 before the National Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, New Delhi3 which was dismissed, vide order
dated 15.06.2020, affirming the order of the State Commission.
3. The issue which falls for our consideration is whether in respect of
the goods purchased/services availed, the appellant would qualify
as a “consumer” as defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the 1986 Act.

Facts
4. The complainant (appellant herein), a company incorporated and
registered under the Companies Act, 1956, filed a consumer complaint
before the State Commission claiming, inter alia, that, - it is engaged
in export and import of medical devices and equipment; with an
intent to install and implement an export/ import documentation
system at its plant, it sought a software; in connection therewith, it
purchased a product licence of “Brillio Opti Suite”, a software, from
the respondent; requisite payment for the purchase was made, but
the software did not function properly. In consequence, claiming
deficiency in service, the complaint was filed, inter alia, for refund of
the entire amount paid by the complainant to the respondent towards
(a) product licence cost and (b) additional development cost together
with interest at the rate of 18%.

1 State Commission
2 1986 Act
3 NCDRC
[2025] 12 S.C.R. 193

M/s Poly Medicure Ltd. v. M/s Brillio Technologies Pvt. Ltd

5. The respondent contested the complaint claiming, inter alia, that the
complaint is not maintainable as the complainant is not a consumer
as defined in Section 2 (1) (d) of the 1986 Act.
6. The State Commission vide its order dated 19.08.2019 held that since
purchase of the software license was for a commercial purpose, the
complainant would not qualify as a “consumer”; hence, the complaint
is not maintainable.
7. Aggrieved by the order of the State Commission, the appellant
filed an appeal before NCDRC, which came to be dismissed by the
impugned order.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

Submissions on behalf of the appellant
9. On behalf of the appellant, it was contended that software was
purchased for self-use; appellant was the end user and had no
intention to transfer/ sell it for profit, therefore, it cannot be said
that purchase was for commercial purpose; moreover, purchase of
goods/ services for self-utilization with no intention to directly generate
profit from it, would qualify the purchaser of such goods or services
as a “consumer” by virtue of Explanation to Section 2(1)(d) of the
1986 Act, 1986. Decision of this Court in Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta
Medical Trust v. Unique Shanti Developers and Ors4 was relied to
contend that identity of a person making the purchase, or the value
of the transaction, is not conclusive to determine whether it is for a
commercial purpose. What is to be seen is the dominant purpose for
the transaction, that is, whether it is to facilitate some kind of profit
generation for the purchaser / other beneficiary. Additionally, it was
argued that since the software was not directly linked to generation of
profit, the transaction cannot be considered as one for a commercial
purpose so as to disqualify the appellant from being a “consumer”.
9.1. Reliance was also placed on decision of this Court in Sunil
Kohli and Anr. v. Purearth Infrastructure Ltd.5 to contend that
if purchaser of a property puts it to commercial use to earn his
livelihood, by way of self-employment, such a purchaser would

4 (2020) 2 SCC 265
5 (2020) 12 SCC 235
194 [2025] 12 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

be a consumer. Based on those decisions, learned counsel for
the appellant contended that since the appellant had purchased
the software for installing and implementing an export/ import
documentation system for self-use as an end user thereof,
and not for resale or transfer or conversion in any manner,
the appellant would qualify as a consumer and, therefore, the
view to the contrary taken by the State Commission as well as
NCDRC is against the law and liable to be set aside.

Submissions on behalf of respondent
10. Per contra, on behalf of the respondent, it was submitted that the
software “Brillio Opti Suite” is admittedly for carrying out professional
activities. The software is customized to provide support to the
appellant in managing its business affairs by performing various
functions such as Export Document Set, Clubbing/Spitting SAP Sales
Documents, Clubbing of Bill of Exchange, Advance Payment/FIRC,
CHA Charges Tracking, Duty Drawback (All Industrial rate), Letter of
Credit Management, Container Indents and Tracking, Export Credit
Guarantee Corporation (ECGC) Policy Management, Export Packing
Credit Handling, FOREX Forward Cover Management. Thus, the
software was used by the appellant to create documents necessary
for import and export of its goods and also to track consignments
and benefits available under various Government Schemes. The use
of the software therefore had a direct nexus with profit-generating
activity of the appellant. Besides above, the disputes dealt with
under the 1986 Act are business to consumer and not business
to business. Additionally, it was contended, if statutory provisions
are interpreted in the manner as suggested by the appellant, then
business to business transactions would also fall as consumer
disputes thereby defeating the very purpose of the 1986 Act, which
is to provide simple and speedy redressal of consumer disputes. In
support of its submissions, the learned counsel for the respondent
placed reliance on decisions of this Court in Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta
Medical Trust (supra); National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Harsolia
Motors and Ors6 and Shrikant G. Mantri v. Punjab National Bank7.

6 (2023) 8 SCC 362
7 (2022) 5 SCC 42
[2025] 12 S.C.R. 195

M/s Poly Medicure Ltd. v. M/s Brillio Technologies Pvt. Ltd

Discussion/ Analysis
11. Before we set out to consider whether the appellant is a “consumer”
as defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the 1986 Act, it would be useful to
reproduce the definition of “consumer” as contained in Section 2(1)
(d) of the 1986 Act. The same reads as under: -
“(d) “consumer” means any person who, —
(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been
paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or
under any system of deferred payment and includes
any user of such goods other than the person who
buys such goods for consideration paid or promised
or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system
of deferred payment, when such use is made with
the approval of such person, but does not include
a person who obtains such goods for resale or
for any commercial purpose; or
(ii) hires or avails of any services for a consideration
which has been paid or promised or partly paid and
partly promised, or under any system of deferred
payment and includes any beneficiary of such
services other than the person who hires or avails
of the services for consideration paid or promised, or
partly paid and partly promised, or under any system
of deferred payment, when such services are availed
of with the approval of the first mentioned person [but
does not include a person who avails of such
services for any commercial purpose]
Explanation.— For the purposes of this clause,
“commercial purpose” does not include use by a
person of goods bought and used by him and services
availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning
his livelihood by means of self-employment;”
(Emphasis supplied)

12. Sub-clause (i) of Clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the
1986 Act in simple terms provides that “consumer” means any person
who buys any goods for a consideration. However, it excludes from
196 [2025] 12 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

its purview a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any
commercial purpose. Sub-clause (ii) of Clause (d) of sub-section (1) of
Section 2 in simple terms provides that a person who hires or avails
of any services for a consideration shall also be a consumer provided
such services are not for any commercial purpose. Explanation to
clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 2 of 1986 Act carves out an
exception by clarifying that commercial purpose does not include use
by a person of goods bought and used or/ and services availed by
him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means
of self-employment.
13. In Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation and Anr. v. Ashok
Iron Works Private Ltd.8, this Court had an occasion to consider
the true import of the term “person” as defined in Section 2(1)(m) of
the 1986 Act9; as per which, “person” includes,—(i) a firm whether
registered or not; (ii) a Hindu undivided family; (iii) a co-operative
society; (iv) every other association of persons whether registered
under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (21 of 1860) or not. Upon
consideration of the aforesaid definition in conjunction with the
definition of “person” as provided in section 3 (42) of the General
Clauses Act, 189710, this Court held as follows:
“20. Section 3 of the Act, 1986 upon which reliance is placed
by learned counsel for KPTC provides that the provisions
of the Act are in addition to and not in derogation of any
other law for the time being in force. This provision instead
of helping the contention of KPTC would rather suggest
that the access to the remedy provided to the Act of 1986
is an addition to the provisions of any other law for the
time being in force. It does not in any way give any clue
to restrict the definition of the ‘person’.
21. Section 2(1)(m) is beyond all questions, an interpretation
clause, and must have been intended by the Legislature to
be taken into account in construing the expression `person’

8 (2009) 3 SCC 240
9 Section 2(1)(m). “person” includes,—(i) a firm whether registered or not; (ii)a Hindu undivided family;
(iii) a co-operative society; (iv) every other association of persons whether registered under the Societies
Registration Act, 1860 (21 of 1860) or not.
10 Section 3(42). – “person” shall include any company or association or body of individuals, whether
incorporated or not.
[2025] 12 S.C.R. 197

M/s Poly Medicure Ltd. v. M/s Brillio Technologies Pvt. Ltd

as it occurs in Section 2(1)(d). While defining `person’ in
Section 2(1)(m), the Legislature never intended to exclude
a juristic person like company. As a matter of fact, the
four categories by way of enumeration mentioned therein
is indicative, categories (i), (ii) & (iv) being unincorporate
and category (iii) corporate, of its intention to include body
corporate as well as body un-incorporate. The definition of
‘person’ in Section 2(1)(m) is inclusive and not exhaustive.
It does not appear to us to admit of any doubt that company
is a person within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) read with
Section 2(1)(m) and we hold accordingly.”
14. We respectfully agree with the view taken by this Court in Karnataka
Power Transmission Corp. and Anr (supra) that the definition of
“person” in Section 2(1)(m) is inclusive and not exhaustive. Therefore,
there can be no doubt that even an incorporated company could
be a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) read with
Section 2(1)(m) of the 1986 Act.
15. As to when an activity or transaction of purchase of goods or services
availed can be understood as for a commercial purpose, this Court,
in Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust (supra), after considering
number of decisions, culled out broad principles for its determination.
The relevant paragraphs of the said decision are extracted below:-
“19. To summarize from the above discussion, though
a straight- jacket formula cannot be adopted in every
case, the following broad principles can be culled out for
determining whether an activity or transaction is “for a
commercial purpose”:
19.1 The question of whether a transaction is for a commercial
purpose would depend upon the facts and circumstances
of each case. However, ordinarily, “commercial purpose”
is understood to include manufacturing/ industrial activity
or business-to-business transactions between commercial
entities.
19.2 The purchase of the good or service should have
a close and direct nexus with a profit-generating activity.
19.3 The identity of the person making the purchase or the
value of the transaction is not conclusive to the question of
198 [2025] 12 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

whether it is for a commercial purpose. It has to be seen
whether the dominant intention or dominant purpose for the
transaction was to facilitate some kind of profit generation
for the purchaser and/or their beneficiary.
19.4 If it is found that the dominant purpose behind
purchasing the good or service was for the personal use
and consumption of the purchaser and/or their beneficiary,
or is otherwise not linked to any commercial activity, the
question of whether such a purchase was for the purpose
of ‘generating livelihood by means of self-employment’
need not be looked into.”
16. What is clear from the above decision is that the identity of the person
making the purchase, or the value of the transaction, is not conclusive
to determine whether the transaction or activity is for a commercial
purpose. What is to be seen is the dominant intention or dominant
purpose for the transaction i.e. whether it is to facilitate some kind
of profit generation for the purchaser(s) and/or its/ their beneficiary.
If it is found that the dominant purpose behind purchasing goods
or services is for personal use and consumption of the purchaser,
or is otherwise not linked to any commercial activity, the question
whether such purchase is for generating a livelihood by means
of self-employment need not be looked into. However, where the
transaction is for a commercial purpose then it might have to be
considered whether it is for generating livelihood by means of self-
employment or not.
17. The aforesaid judgment underscores that ordinarily commercial
purpose is understood to include manufacturing/ industrial activity
or business to business transaction between commercial entities.
18. There is a difference between a self-employed individual and a
corporation. The goods purchased by a self-employed individual for
self-use for generating livelihood would fall within the explanation
even if activity of that person is to generate profits for the purpose
of its livelihood. But where a company purchases a software for
automating its processes, the object is to maximise profits and,
therefore, it would not fall within the explanation of Section 2(1)(d)
of the 1986 Act.
19. In Sunil Kohli (supra), a decision relied by the appellant, the
complainants were non-resident Indians residing abroad. They
[2025] 12 S.C.R. 199

M/s Poly Medicure Ltd. v. M/s Brillio Technologies Pvt. Ltd

intended to shift to India and therefore, with an intention to earn their
livelihood, they booked a shop with the opposite party. The allegations
in the complaint were that the complainants had paid instalments to
the opposite party and despite full payment, the opposite party failed to
deliver possession. Consequently, complainants sought compensation
and delivery of possession. The opposite party therein contested
the proceedings by claiming that the complainants had booked
the shop for commercial purpose therefore they cannot be termed
“consumer”. In the light of earlier decisions of this Court in Laxmi
Engineering Works v. P.S.G. Industrial Institute11 and Cheema
Engineering Services v. Rajan Singh12, this Court considered the
evidence on record to determine whether the premises were booked
by the complainants with an intention of self-employment / self-use.
Upon finding that the complainant(s) were not employed any more in
foreign land and had disclosed their desire to come to India to start
a business, this Court held them to be consumer(s).
20. The decision in Sunil Kohli (supra) will not be of help to the appellant
as that was a case of unemployed individual(s) who had booked a
shop for self-employment; whereas, in the case on hand, the appellant
is a company engaged in commercial activity of import/export, and
the goods/services purchased/availed by the company were to
automate its business processes with a view to augment its efficiency
and profits. Thus, whether those goods/ services purchased/availed
are for self-use, in our view, would not make a material difference.
21. In Virender Singh v. M/s. Darshana Trading Co. through its
partner Sanjay Seth (Dead) & Anr. (Special Leave to Appeal (C)
No.5510 of 2020, decided on 18.03.2025), the complainant, had
purchased machines by which the manufacturing of die could be
done at cheaper cost and with more precision. As there were defects
in the machine, a complaint was filed before the State Commission,
wherein the preliminary objection raised was that since the machine
was purchased purely for commercial purposes, the complainant is
not covered under the definition of a consumer. The objection was
sustained by the State Commission and its decision was affirmed by
the National Commission. The matter travelled to this Court. Argument
raised was that since the machine was purchased for self-use/

11 (1995) 3 SCC 583
12 (1997) 1 SCC 131
200 [2025] 12 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

self-employment, it cannot be a commercial purpose. In support
of its submission an earlier decision of this Court in Paramount
Digital Colour Lab & others v. Agfa India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.13 was
cited. Upholding the decision of the National Commission, this Court
held that though it is correct that if goods or services purchased
or availed are for self-employment, it cannot be categorized as
commercial purpose, but each case has to be seen in light of its
own facts. Thereafter, while distinguishing the case of Paramount
Digital (supra), it was held:
“In this case cited above i.e., Paramount Digital (supra),
there were two unemployed graduate persons who had
purchased the machine evidently for self-employment.
But in the present case, the petitioner/ complainant was
already running a business as a commercial venture and
admittedly he had purchased the machine to expand his
business. It is not a case where the petitioner was himself
operating the machine, but he had employed workmen who
were doing the job for him. Under these circumstances, no
matter how small the venture is, it cannot be called self-
employment for the purpose of the Act and therefore, we
find no scope to take a different view than the one taken
by the State Commission and the National Commission.”
22. In the case on hand also, the complainant had been an established
company doing business which bought the product license to
automate its processes. In such circumstances, the object of the
purchase was not to generate self-employment but to organize its
operations with a view to maximise profits. In our view therefore,
the case of the complainant does not fall within the Explanation to
Section 2(1)(d) of the 1986 Act.
23. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Harsolia Motors and Ors
(supra), another decision relied by the appellant, the complainant, a
commercial entity engaged in the business of sale of vehicles, took fire
insurance policy from the appellant, an insurance company, covering
its office, showroom, garage, machinery lying in the showroom
premises, etc. The complainant’s case was that damages were
sustained during Godhra riots and, therefore, the complainant was

13 (2018) 14 SCC 81
[2025] 12 S.C.R. 201

M/s Poly Medicure Ltd. v. M/s Brillio Technologies Pvt. Ltd

entitled to be indemnified under the policy of Insurance. Aggrieved
by action of the insurance company, claiming deficiency in service,
a complaint was filed. The Insurance Company took an objection
that the complainant was not a consumer as per Section 2(1)(d) of
the 1986 Act because its ultimate object is to earn profits. The State
Commission upheld the objection; against which, the complainant filed
an appeal before the National Commission. The National Commission
held that the expression used “for any commercial purpose” would
mean that the goods purchased or services hired should be used in
any activity directly intended to generate profit, but in a case where
goods purchased or services availed are not intended to generate
profit, it would not be a commercial purpose. Therefore, it was held,
when a person takes an insurance cover for indemnification of actual
loss suffered, the intention is not to generate profits. Consequently,
the complainant would be a consumer. Upholding the above view
of the National Commission, this Court observed:
“39. Applying the aforesaid test, two things are culled
out; (i) whether the goods are purchased for resale or for
commercial purpose; or (ii) whether the services are availed
for any commercial purpose. The two-fold classification
is commercial purpose and non-commercial purpose. If
the goods are purchased for resale or for commercial
purpose, then such consumer would be excluded from the
coverage of the Act, 1986. For example, if a manufacturer
who is producing product A, for such production he may be
required to purchase articles which may be raw material,
then purchase of such articles would be for commercial
purpose. As against this, if the same manufacturer
purchases a refrigerator, television or air-conditioner for
his use at his residence or even for his office has no direct
or indirect nexus to generate profits, it cannot be held to
be for commercial purpose and for afore-stated reason
he is qualified to approach the Consumer Forum under
the Act, 1986.
40. Similarly, a hospital which hires services of a medical
practitioner, it would be a commercial purpose, but if a
person avails such services for his ailment, it would be held
to be a non-commercial purpose. Taking a wide meaning
of the words “for any commercial purpose”, it would mean
202 [2025] 12 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

that the goods purchased or services hired should be used
in any activity directly intended to generate profit. Profit is
the main aim of commercial purpose, but in a case where
goods purchased or services hired is an activity, which is
not directly intended to generate profit, it would not be a
commercial purpose.
41. In other words, to make it further clear, let us have
certain illustrations, as to whether the transaction falls
for commercial purpose or whether the complainant can
be held to be a “consumer” within the scope and ambit
of Act, 1986.
41.1 A CT scan machine was purchased by a Charitable
Trust and that was found to be defective, the question raised
whether the machinery was purchased for a commercial
purpose and whether the appellant was a consumer.
From the narration of facts, this Court in Kalpavruksha
Charitable Trust v. Toshniwal Bros. (Bombay) (P) Ltd. held
that the machine was purchased by the Charitable Trust
for commercial purpose as every person who takes a CT
scan has to pay for it and the services rendered are not
free and thus the Trust was not a consumer.
41.2. In Rajeev Metal Works v. Mineral & Metal Trading
Corpn. of India Ltd., a manufacturer imported raw material
through statutory authority that acted as a canalizing
agency for manufacture and sale of the finished product.
The appellant approached the National Commission
alleging that the respondent had not supplied the required
quantity demanded by the appellant. This Court held that
the purchase was for a commercial purpose and the
manufacturer was not a “consumer” for the purpose of
the Act, 1986.
41.3. The bank which had taken bankers indemnity
insurance policy from the insurance company and
suffered loss owing to some of transactions in one of
its branches, raised an insurance claim stating that it is
owing to dishonesty of Branch Manager and the claim
was repudiated by the insurance company stating that
the alleged loss was because of some dishonesty of the
[2025] 12 S.C.R. 203

M/s Poly Medicure Ltd. v. M/s Brillio Technologies Pvt. Ltd

Branch Manager and this being for commercial purpose,
may not be a consumer.
41.4. The complainant is a private limited company running
a diagnostic clinic and alleges that Xray machine purchased
by the complainant from the opposite party was defective.
If an objection is raised that as machine was purchased for
commercial purpose and the complainant cannot be said
to be a consumer as defined under the Act, 1986 as he
has been employed for commercial purpose and has been
carrying out business for profit indeed the complainant is
not a consumer under the Act, 1986.
41.5. A company purchased the EPBX system for the
better management of the business of the company for
commercial purpose and the complaint filed for alleged
supply of defective system may not be covered by the
explanatory clause of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act, 1986 as
the transaction has no nexus to generate profits.
42. Thus, what is finally culled out is that each case has to
be examined on its own facts and circumstances and what
is to be examined is whether any activity or transaction
is for commercial purpose to generate profits and there
cannot be a straightjacket formula which can be adopted
and every case has to be examined on the broad principles
which have been laid down by this Court, of which detailed
discussion has been made.”
24. Based on paragraphs 39 and 41.5 of the decision in Harsolia Motors
(supra), the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that if the
goods purchased or services availed are for convenience/ comfort
or for better management of the business of the company, and the
complaint is filed for compensation on account of defective supplies
or deficient services, a consumer complaint would be maintainable.
25. In our view, if we read paragraphs 39 and 41.5 in conjunction with
other paragraphs of the judgment in Harsolia Motors (supra),
more particularly paragraph 42, what becomes clear is that if the
transaction has a nexus with generation of profits, it would be
treated as one for a commercial purpose. The examples of purchase
of refrigerator, television or air-conditioner cited in paragraph 39
204 [2025] 12 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

(supra), as one not relating to generation of profit, makes the
position clear. These products/ goods are for comfort having no
direct nexus to generation of profits. But if a transaction has nexus
with generation of profits, it would be for a commercial purpose.
However, whether a transaction has nexus with generation of profits
or not is to be determined on the facts of each case by taking
into consideration, inter alia, the nature of the goods purchased
or services availed and the purpose for which it is purchased or
availed. If upon consideration of all relevant factors the picture that
emerges is one which reflects that the object of the purchase of
goods/ services is to generate or augment profit, the same would
be treated as for a commercial purpose.
26. Besides above, the question that fell for consideration before this
Court in Harsolia Motors (supra) was whether the insurance services
availed were for commercial purpose or not. Insurance service by its
very nature is to secure the insured against a prospective loss on
account of unforeseen circumstances. Therefore, the dominant object
of availing that service is not to generate profit but to secure oneself
against unforeseen losses. In that context, this Court took the view
that availing of insurance services would not be a transaction for a
commercial purpose even though it may be a business to business
transaction. The other illustrations / examples cited in the judgment
do not constitute the ratio decidendi of that decision.
27. In the instant case, not only the complainant is a commercial entity,
the purchase of goods/ services (i.e., software) from the respondent
was with a view to automate the processes of the company which
were linked to generation of profit inasmuch as automation of business
processes is undertaken not just for better management of the
business but to reduce costs and maximise profits. Thus, in our view,
the transaction of purchase of goods/ services (i.e., software) had a
nexus with generation of profits and, therefore, qua that transaction
the appellant cannot be considered a consumer as defined in
Section 2(1)(d) of the 1986 Act.
28. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the considered view that both
the State Commission as well as the National Commission were
justified in holding that the goods /services purchased/ availed by the
appellant were for a commercial purpose and therefore the appellant
is not a “consumer” as per Section 2(1)(d) of the 1986 Act.
[2025] 12 S.C.R. 205

M/s Poly Medicure Ltd. v. M/s Brillio Technologies Pvt. Ltd

29. The appeal lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. There is no
order as to costs.
30. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. There is no order
as to costs.

Result of the case: Appeal dismissed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey