Back
J. B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA
Poly Medicure Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Brillio Technologies Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
Key Points: - The appeal concerns whether the appellant (a company) qualifies as a "consumer" under Section 2(1)(d) of the 1986 Act (!) . - The Court holds that "commercial purpose" is not determined by the mere identity of the purchaser or the value, but by the dominant intention or purpose behind the transaction (!) (!) . - The Supreme Court cites Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust and elaborates broad principles for determining commercial purpose, including nexus to profit generation and the distinction between self-employment and corporate activity (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - It is noted that a company purchasing software to automate its processes has a nexus to profit generation and thus may not be a consumer under Section 2(1)(d) read with 2(1)(m) (!) . - The State Commission and NCDRC correctly held the complainant was not a consumer due to its commercial purpose (!) (!) . - The judgment discusses examples illustrating when purchases are not for commercial purpose (e.g., appliances for personal use) versus those for profit-generating activities (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
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[State Commission]. 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[1986 Act].
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[NCDRC] 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 i
None of the listed cases explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or treated as bad law. The provided descriptions do not contain language suggesting negative treatment or invalidation by higher courts. Therefore, based solely on the information given, there are no cases identified as bad law.
Followed / Affirmed / Consistent Treatment:
Paramount Digital Color Lab VS Agfa India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Etc. - 2018 5 Supreme 754: This case establishes a principle regarding the definition of ‘consumer’ and the scope of self-employment, with no indication of subsequent treatment. It appears to be a settled proposition.
Sunil Kohli VS Purearth Infrastructure Ltd. - 2020 5 Supreme 562: The case clarifies that a purchaser using goods for earning livelihood for self-employment remains a consumer. The language suggests it is a well-accepted interpretation, but no subsequent treatment is indicated.
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS HARSOLIA MOTORS - 2023 3 Supreme 300: Explains that hiring insurance for indemnifying risk is not for profit generation and clarifies the concept of commercial purpose. No indication of reversal or criticism.
Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust VS Unique Shanti Developers - 2020 5 Supreme 497: Discusses the nature of purchasing flats for hostel purposes and principles for determining ‘commercial purpose’. No evidence of negative treatment.
Cheema Engineering Services VS Rajan Singh - 1997 1 Supreme 51: Clarifies that earning livelihood in a commercial business does not necessarily mean the activity is not for commercial purpose, emphasizing evidence-based determination. No subsequent treatment indicated.
Karnataka Power Transmission Corpn. VS Ashok Iron Works Pvt. Ltd. - 2009 1 Supreme 762: Defines ‘supply’ and clarifies the status of juristic persons like companies under the Act. No indication of being overruled or criticized.
Distinguished / Clarified:
M/S POLY MEDICURE LTD. vs M/S BRILLIO TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD - 2025 Supreme(Online)(SC) 9947: The case appears to be a specific dispute (Agfa India Pvt. Ltd. v. Purearth Infrastructure Ltd.). Without further context, it is not indicated whether it has been overruled or criticized. It seems to serve as a precedent or illustrative case.
Uncertain / No clear treatment:
All cases are presented with descriptive language that does not suggest subsequent judicial treatment such as overruled or criticized. Without additional case law references or citations indicating subsequent judicial treatment, their treatment status remains unclear.
All cases are presented with descriptions that do not specify subsequent treatment. Therefore, their treatment status remains uncertain due to lack of explicit references to overruled, reversed, or criticized treatment. Additional case law references or judicial citations would be necessary to definitively categorize their treatment.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
