Verdict

In the Supreme Court, Civil Appellate
Civil Appeal No. 6349 of 2024
(arising out of SLP No.14306 of 2020)

M/s Poly Medicure Ltd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appellant
versus
M/s Brillio Technologies Pvt Ltd . . . . . . . . . . Respondent

While adjudicating on the Civil Appeal arising out of a Special Leave Petition, the Hon’ble Supreme Court recently re-affirmed the definition of a ‘consumer’ under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [‘Act’].

Background and Facts

1. M/s Poly Medicure Ltd [‘Appellant’ / ‘Poly Medicure’], a Delhi-based company registered under the Companies Act,1956 engaged in export and import medical equipment, required a software for its documentation system.
2. M/s Brillio Technologies Pvt Ltd [‘Respondent’/ ‘Brillio’] sold to Poly Medicure, a software called “Brillio Opti Suite” after receiving the requisite payment for the product.
3. When the software did not function properly, Poly Medicure  asked for a refund from Brillio which was refused to be refunded.
4. In 2019, Poly Medicure approached the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission [‘SCDRC’] which rejected Poly Medicure’s claim for refund in August 2019. 
5. Aggrieved, Poly Medicure appealed to the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission [‘NCDRC’] which confirmed the SCDRC order and dismissed the appeal in June 2020. 
6. Poly Medicure filed a Special Leave Petition [‘SLP’] in Supreme Court in 2020 for setting aside the SCDRC and NCDRC orders.

Issue involved     

• Does Poly Medicure qualify as a ‘consumer’ under the Act?
• What defines a ‘commercial purpose’ usage under the Act?

Reference Cases  
Supreme Court’s verdicts in following cases have been referred to in the adjudication of this case:

1. Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust v/s Unique Shanti Developers and Others (2020) 2 SCC 265
2. Sunil Kohli and Anr. v/s Purearth Infrastructure Ltd (2020) 12 SCC 235
3. National Insurance Co. Ltd. v/s Harsolia Motors and Others (2023) 8 SCC 362
4. Shrikant G. Mantri v/s Punjab National Bank (2022) 5 SCC 42
5. Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation & Anr v/s Ashok Iron Works Private Ltd(2009) 3 SCC 240
6. Laxmi Engineering Works v/s P.S.G. Industrial Institute (1995) 3 SCC 583 
7. Cheema Engineering Services v/s Rajan Singh (1997) 1 SCC 131
8. Virender Singh v/s Darshana Trading Co. & Anr Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.5510 of 2020
9. Paramount Digital Colour Lab & others v/s Agfa India Pvt Ltd & Ors (2018) 14 SCC 81

Analysis

a) Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act qualifies a ‘consumer’ as any person who:

1. Buys any goods or avails of any services for a consideration paid or promised fully or partly.
2. Uses the goods or services with approval of the person who has partly or fully paid the consideration.

b) Section 2 (1) (m) of the Act describes a ‘person’ not just as an individual but also as: 

1. A firm or a cooperative society, with our without registration. 
2. An association of individuals whether registered or not under Societies Registration Act.
3. A Hindu Undivided Family.
   And, by corollary, also include:
4. A company registered under Companies Act, 1956. 

c) Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act disqualifies any person as a ‘consumer’, if the person:

1. Uses the goods or services for ‘commercial purpose’. Note: ‘commercial purpose’ includes ‘resale’ but does not include usage of the goods or services for ‘earning livelihood’ or ‘self-employment’.

d) Whether a transaction has a ‘commercial purpose’ cannot be explained in a stereotype manner; the facts and circumstances surrounding each transaction will determine its nature. However, the following broad principles can determine if a transaction has a ‘commercial purpose’:

1. Transaction involves manufacturing or some such industrial activity.
2. Transaction is between ‘business to business’ (B2B) and not between ‘business to consumer’ (B2C).
3. The dominant intention behind the Transaction is to generate profit for the firm/company and not for (i) self-employment of an individual as a means of livelihood or (ii) securing the individual or the enterprise from unforeseen losses by availing the protection of an insurance cover.    
4. A direct or indirect nexus can be seen to exist between the product/service purchased/availed and the generation or maximisation of profit.   

e) The Supreme Court was of the view that in the present case, Poly Medicure’s claim of being a ‘consumer’ under the Act cannot be validated because:
Poly Medicure purchased the software for the express purpose of ‘automation’ of his business process, with the intention of (i) enhancing efficiency of the process and (ii) reducing the cost of operations. There hence exists a clear nexus between the product purchased and the maximising of profits for the company. Thus, the Poly Medicure’s transaction with Brillio is clearly for ‘commercial purpose’. Since the transaction between Poly Medicure and Brillio is for ‘commercial purpose’, Poly Medicure cannot be qualified to be a ‘consumer’ under the Act.    

Based on the above analysis, the Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the SCRDS and NCRDC and dismissed the appeal of Poly Medicure.   

For full text of the judgement:
https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2020/24888/24888_2020_15_1501_65671_Judgement_13-Nov-2025.pdf