On a slightly warm Thursday afternoon, the Supreme Court bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice J.B. Pardiwala delivered a judgment that had lawyers in Courtroom 4 quietly nodding some in agreement, others in concern over the ripple effects. The appeal filed by Poly Medicure Ltd. against Brillio Technologies Pvt. Ltd. was dismissed, with the Court ruling that the company could not claim the status of a “consumer” under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
As the order was read out, the bench remarked in a measured tone,
“The dominant purpose behind the transaction must be examined… and here, the purpose clearly connects with profit-generation.”
Background
Poly Medicure, a well-known manufacturer and exporter of medical devices, had approached the State Consumer Commission in 2019 alleging that a software purchased from Brillio Technologies called Brillio Opti Suite failed to function properly.
The company said it needed the software to streamline its export-import documentation, reduce paperwork hassles, and keep track of consignments. For this, it paid the licence fee and additional development charges. But when things didn’t work as promised, Poly Medicure alleged deficiency in service and sought a refund with 18% interest.
However, both the State Commission and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) threw out the complaint, saying the purchase was made for a commercial purpose and hence did not fall under the definition of “consumer.”
The company then knocked on the doors of the Supreme Court.
Court’s Observations
During the hearing, Poly Medicure insisted that the software was bought merely for internal use and not to generate any direct profit. Their counsel argued that buying something for “better management” shouldn’t be tagged as a “commercial purpose.”
Brillio’s counsel countered firmly, explaining that the software wasn’t an ordinary office tool like a fridge or AC it was a customised suite enabling export documentation, SAP integration, credit management, container tracking, and even duty drawback computation. All of these, he argued, “directly assist profit-making activities.”
Justice Misra noted, almost conversationally,
“There’s a clear difference between a self-employed individual buying tools to earn a livelihood and a company purchasing software to maximise profits.”
At one point, the bench addressed a recurring misconception in such disputes:
“Merely calling something ‘self-use’ does not take it outside the commercial domain when the entity itself is a profit-making corporation.”
The Court relied heavily on earlier precedents, including Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust, Harsolia Motors, Sunil Kohli, and Virender Singh, distinguishing each carefully. The judges emphasised that the real test was the dominant purpose of the transaction.
Decision
Concluding the judgment, Justice Misra read out the key finding:
“Automation of business processes is undertaken not merely for convenience but to reduce cost and maximise profits. The purchase of this software had a direct nexus with profit-generating activity. The appellant cannot be considered a consumer.”
With that, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that Poly Medicure’s complaint was not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act.
The courtroom fell silent for a moment a kind of acceptance that this ruling would likely influence several pending software-related consumer disputes in the coming months.
The appeal was dismissed. No order as to costs.
Case Title:- M/s Poly Medicure Ltd. vs. M/s Brillio Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number:- Civil Appeal No. 6349 of 2024