Full Judgment Text
2025 INSC 1314
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6349 OF 2024
Arising out SLP (C) No. 14306 of 2020
M/S POLY MEDICURE LTD. …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
M/S BRILLIO TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD
…RESPONDENT (S)
J U D G M E N T
MANOJ MISRA, J.
1. This appeal arises from Consumer Complaint No.
515 of 2019 filed by the appellant before the State
1
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi .
The State Commission, vide its order dated
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
KAVITA PAHUJA
Date: 2025.11.13
16:51:06 IST
Reason:
1
State Commission
Civil Appeal No.6349 of 2024 Page 1 of 27
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,
2
1986 .
2. Aggrieved by the State Commission’s order, the
appellant filed First Appeal No. 1977 of 2019 before
the National Consumer Disputes Redressal
3
Commission, New Delhi 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
2
1986 Act
3
NCDRC
Page 2 of 27
Civil Appeal No. 6349 of 2024
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 “ ”, a
Brillio Opti Suite
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%.
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.
Page 3 of 27
Civil Appeal No. 6349 of 2024
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
Page 4 of 27
Civil Appeal No. 6349 of 2024
Mehta Medical Trust v. Unique Shanti Developers
4
and Ors 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
5
Infrastructure Ltd . to contend that if purchaser of
a property puts it to commercial use to earn his
livelihood, by way of self-employment, such a
4
(2020) 2 SCC 265
5
(2020) 12 SCC 235
Page 5 of 27
Civil Appeal No. 6349 of 2024
purchaser would 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
Page 6 of 27
Civil Appeal No. 6349 of 2024
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
Page 7 of 27
Civil Appeal No. 6349 of 2024
counsel for the respondent placed reliance on
decisions of this Court in Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta
Medical Trust (supra); National Insurance Co.
6
Ltd. v. Harsolia Motors and Ors and Shrikant G.
7
Mantri v. Punjab National Bank .
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
6
(2023) 8 SCC 362
7
(2022) 5 SCC 42
Page 8 of 27
Civil Appeal No. 6349 of 2024
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
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
Page 9 of 27
Civil Appeal No. 6349 of 2024
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
8
Private Ltd. , this Court had an occasion to consider
the true import of the term “person” as defined in
9
Section 2(1)(m) of the 1986 Act ; 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
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.
Page 10 of 27
Civil Appeal No. 6349 of 2024
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
10
the General Clauses Act, 1897 , 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'
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
10
Section 3(42). – “person” shall include any company or association or body of individuals, whether
incorporated or not.
Page 11 of 27
Civil Appeal No. 6349 of 2024
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”:
Page 12 of 27
Civil Appeal No. 6349 of 2024
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 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
Page 13 of 27
Civil Appeal No. 6349 of 2024
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
Page 14 of 27
Civil Appeal No. 6349 of 2024
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 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
Page 15 of 27
Civil Appeal No. 6349 of 2024
booked the shop for commercial purpose therefore
they cannot be termed “consumer”. In the light of
earlier decisions of this Court in Laxmi Engineering
11
Works v. P.S.G. Industrial Institute and Cheema
12
Engineering Services v. Rajan Singh , 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
11
(1995) 3 SCC 583
12
(1997) 1 SCC 131
Page 16 of 27
Civil Appeal No. 6349 of 2024
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.
Page 17 of 27
Civil Appeal No. 6349 of 2024
Argument raised was that since the machine was
purchased for self-use/ 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.
13
Ltd. & Ors. 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
13
(2018) 14 SCC 81
Page 18 of 27
Civil Appeal No. 6349 of 2024
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
Page 19 of 27
Civil Appeal No. 6349 of 2024
during Godhra riots and, therefore, the complainant
was 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
Page 20 of 27
Civil Appeal No. 6349 of 2024
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 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
Page 21 of 27
Civil Appeal No. 6349 of 2024
“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
, a manufacturer
Trading Corpn. of India Ltd.
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 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
Page 22 of 27
Civil Appeal No. 6349 of 2024
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.
Page 23 of 27
Civil Appeal No. 6349 of 2024
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 (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
Page 24 of 27
Civil Appeal No. 6349 of 2024
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
Page 25 of 27
Civil Appeal No. 6349 of 2024
(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.
29. The appeal lacks merit and is, accordingly,
dismissed. There is no order as to costs.
Page 26 of 27
Civil Appeal No. 6349 of 2024
30. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
There is no order as to costs.
.………….......................................J.
(J. B. PARDIWALA)
……………......................................J.
(MANOJ MISRA)
New Delhi;
November 13, 2025.
Page 27 of 27
Civil Appeal No. 6349 of 2024
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6349 OF 2024
Arising out SLP (C) No. 14306 of 2020
M/S POLY MEDICURE LTD. …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
M/S BRILLIO TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD
…RESPONDENT (S)
J U D G M E N T
MANOJ MISRA, J.
1. This appeal arises from Consumer Complaint No.
515 of 2019 filed by the appellant before the State
1
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi .
The State Commission, vide its order dated
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
KAVITA PAHUJA
Date: 2025.11.13
16:51:06 IST
Reason:
1
State Commission
Civil Appeal No.6349 of 2024 Page 1 of 27
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,
2
1986 .
2. Aggrieved by the State Commission’s order, the
appellant filed First Appeal No. 1977 of 2019 before
the National Consumer Disputes Redressal
3
Commission, New Delhi 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
2
1986 Act
3
NCDRC
Page 2 of 27
Civil Appeal No. 6349 of 2024
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 “ ”, a
Brillio Opti Suite
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%.
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.
Page 3 of 27
Civil Appeal No. 6349 of 2024
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
Page 4 of 27
Civil Appeal No. 6349 of 2024
Mehta Medical Trust v. Unique Shanti Developers
4
and Ors 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
5
Infrastructure Ltd . to contend that if purchaser of
a property puts it to commercial use to earn his
livelihood, by way of self-employment, such a
4
(2020) 2 SCC 265
5
(2020) 12 SCC 235
Page 5 of 27
Civil Appeal No. 6349 of 2024
purchaser would 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
Page 6 of 27
Civil Appeal No. 6349 of 2024
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
Page 7 of 27
Civil Appeal No. 6349 of 2024
counsel for the respondent placed reliance on
decisions of this Court in Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta
Medical Trust (supra); National Insurance Co.
6
Ltd. v. Harsolia Motors and Ors and Shrikant G.
7
Mantri v. Punjab National Bank .
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
6
(2023) 8 SCC 362
7
(2022) 5 SCC 42
Page 8 of 27
Civil Appeal No. 6349 of 2024
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
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
Page 9 of 27
Civil Appeal No. 6349 of 2024
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
8
Private Ltd. , this Court had an occasion to consider
the true import of the term “person” as defined in
9
Section 2(1)(m) of the 1986 Act ; 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
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.
Page 10 of 27
Civil Appeal No. 6349 of 2024
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
10
the General Clauses Act, 1897 , 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'
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
10
Section 3(42). – “person” shall include any company or association or body of individuals, whether
incorporated or not.
Page 11 of 27
Civil Appeal No. 6349 of 2024
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”:
Page 12 of 27
Civil Appeal No. 6349 of 2024
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 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
Page 13 of 27
Civil Appeal No. 6349 of 2024
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
Page 14 of 27
Civil Appeal No. 6349 of 2024
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 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
Page 15 of 27
Civil Appeal No. 6349 of 2024
booked the shop for commercial purpose therefore
they cannot be termed “consumer”. In the light of
earlier decisions of this Court in Laxmi Engineering
11
Works v. P.S.G. Industrial Institute and Cheema
12
Engineering Services v. Rajan Singh , 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
11
(1995) 3 SCC 583
12
(1997) 1 SCC 131
Page 16 of 27
Civil Appeal No. 6349 of 2024
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.
Page 17 of 27
Civil Appeal No. 6349 of 2024
Argument raised was that since the machine was
purchased for self-use/ 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.
13
Ltd. & Ors. 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
13
(2018) 14 SCC 81
Page 18 of 27
Civil Appeal No. 6349 of 2024
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
Page 19 of 27
Civil Appeal No. 6349 of 2024
during Godhra riots and, therefore, the complainant
was 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
Page 20 of 27
Civil Appeal No. 6349 of 2024
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 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
Page 21 of 27
Civil Appeal No. 6349 of 2024
“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
, a manufacturer
Trading Corpn. of India Ltd.
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 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
Page 22 of 27
Civil Appeal No. 6349 of 2024
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.
Page 23 of 27
Civil Appeal No. 6349 of 2024
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 (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
Page 24 of 27
Civil Appeal No. 6349 of 2024
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
Page 25 of 27
Civil Appeal No. 6349 of 2024
(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.
29. The appeal lacks merit and is, accordingly,
dismissed. There is no order as to costs.
Page 26 of 27
Civil Appeal No. 6349 of 2024
30. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
There is no order as to costs.
.………….......................................J.
(J. B. PARDIWALA)
……………......................................J.
(MANOJ MISRA)
New Delhi;
November 13, 2025.
Page 27 of 27
Civil Appeal No. 6349 of 2024