Supreme Court Holds Company Buying Software for Business Automation Is Not a Consumer—Purchase for Profit-Linked Activity Is ‘Commercial Purpose’

Case Name: M/s Poly Medicure Ltd. v. M/s Brillio Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: Civil Appeal No. 6349 of 2024; 2025 INSC 1314
Date of Judgment/Order: 13 November 2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manoj Misra

Held: The Supreme Court held that Poly Medicure Ltd. was not a “consumer” under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 because the software it purchased—“Brillio Opti Suite”—was used to automate its import-export documentation, financial tracking, logistics management, and other functions integral to its commercial operations. Since the transaction had a direct nexus with profit-generating business activities, it constituted a commercial purpose, and the self-employment exception in the Explanation to Section 2(1)(d) was inapplicable to a corporate entity. The Court affirmed that business-to-business transactions undertaken to enhance efficiency and profitability do not fall within consumer protection jurisdiction.

Summary: Poly Medicure, a company engaged in import and export of medical devices, purchased a software licence from Brillio Technologies for implementing an export–import documentation and tracking system. Alleging that the software malfunctioned, it filed a consumer complaint seeking refund and compensation. The State Commission dismissed the complaint, holding that the software was purchased for a commercial purpose. The NCDRC affirmed. Before the Supreme Court, Poly Medicure argued that the software was for “self-use,” not resale, and therefore not a commercial purpose; it relied on Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Trust and Sunil Kohli, contending that dominant purpose and absence of profit motive should govern the analysis. The respondent argued that the software was customized for commercial operations—SAP sales documentation, clubbing of bills, CHA charge tracking, ECGC policy management, forex cover management, etc.—all directly linked to business profitability. The Court analysed the statutory definition, the Explanation, and prior authorities including Harsolia Motors, Virender Singh, Paramount Digital, and Shrikant Mantri. It distinguished cases involving self-employment or activities unconnected to profit generation, holding that corporate use of software to streamline profit-linked business processes is squarely commercial in character.

Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that both the State Commission and NCDRC were correct in concluding that the software licence was purchased for a commercial purpose as it automated core business functions directly connected with profit maximisation, thereby excluding the appellant from the definition of “consumer” under Section 2(1)(d) of the 1986 Act. Consequently, the complaint was not maintainable, and no relief could be granted under the Consumer Protection Act.