M/S POLY MEDICURE LTD. v. M/S BRILLIO TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD
Provides detailed analysis of "consumer" definition, "commercial purpose," and interpretation of statutes.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: 2025 INSC 1314
Decision Date: 13-11-2025
List of Laws
Consumer Protection Act, 1986; General Clauses Act, 1897; Companies Act, 2013; General Principles of Law
- Consumer Protection Act, 1986: The judgment extensively discusses Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which defines "consumer". It analyzes whether the appellant, a company that purchased software, qualifies as a consumer under this section. The court reproduces the definition of "consumer" as contained in Section 2(1)(d), including sub-clauses (i) and (ii), and the Explanation regarding "commercial purpose". The court interprets the Explanation to clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 2, clarifying that "commercial purpose" does not include use by a person of goods bought and used or services availed by him exclusively for earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. The judgment concludes that the appellant, being a commercial entity that purchased software to automate its business processes, does not fall within the definition of "consumer" as per Section 2(1)(d) because the transaction had a nexus with the generation of profits. The court also refers to Section 2(1)(m) of the Act, defining "person", and affirms that an incorporated company can be considered a "person" within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d).
- General Clauses Act, 1897: The judgment refers to Section 3(42) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which defines "person" to include any company or association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not. This definition is considered in conjunction with the definition of "person" in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, to determine whether a company can be a consumer.
- Companies Act, 2013: The judgment mentions that the complainant (appellant) is a company incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, 1956. This fact is relevant in determining whether the appellant's purchase of software constitutes a commercial purpose, thereby disqualifying it from being considered a "consumer" under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
- General Principles of Law: The judgment discusses the principle of determining whether a transaction is for a "commercial purpose". It emphasizes that the dominant intention or purpose of the transaction, i.e., whether it is to facilitate some kind of profit generation, is crucial. The judgment also underscores that each case must be examined on its own facts and circumstances to determine whether an activity or transaction is for a commercial purpose to generate profits. It distinguishes between self-employed individuals and corporations, noting that goods purchased by a self-employed individual for self-use to generate livelihood may fall within the explanation of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, even if the activity generates profits for their livelihood.
🔒 For Members Only