BIRLA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. versus NEUTRAL GLASS AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD.

Citation: [2010] 15 S.C.R. 1186 · Decided: 15-12-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.S. SIRPURKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
(2010) 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 1186 
BIRLA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. 
v. 
NEUTRAL GLASS AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD. 
(Civil Appeal No.10650 of 2010) 
DECEMBER 15, 2010 
[V.S. SIRPURKAR AND T.S. THAKUR, JJ.] 
. 
. 
Consuf'flY Protection Act, 1986 - s.2(1)(d)(i) and 
s.2(1)(d)(ii) 1as amended] - Software modules .developed by 
C appellant for respondent - Dispute between the parties -
Respondent filed complaint against appellant alleging 
deficiency in services - Maintainability of the complaint -
Held: The complaint was not maintainable, fi~tly, on the count 
that uls.2(1)(d)(i), goods were purchasecf\for commercial 
D purposes and on the second count that sert>ices were hired 
or availed of for commercial purposes - It was nobody's case 
that the goods bought and used by the respondent and the 
services availed by respondent were exclusively for the 
purpose of earning the respondent's livelihood by means of 
E self-employment - The complaint was not maintainable in 
toto. 
There was dispute between the parties as rega_rds 
the software modules developed by the appellant for the 
respondent. The respondent filed a complaint before the 
F State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission 
alleging deficiency in services by the appellant. The State 
Commission dismissed the complaint holding .that the 
respondent/ complainant was not a •consumer' within t~ 
G 
meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 
The respondent/complainant filed appeal before the 
National Commission. The National Commission held that 
the software irrquestion amounted to sale of goods by 
the appellant to the respondent for commercial purpose 
H 
1186 
BIRLA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. v. NEUTRAL GLASS 1187 
AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD. 
and as such the respondent would be excluded for being 
A 
considered as a 'consumer' under Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the 
Act. However, the National Commission then proceeded 
to hold that there was a warranty period of one year in 
the year 2000 and as such since the complaint was filed 
on 1.8.2000, i.e. prior to the amendment of Section 
B 
2(1)(d)(ii) by the Amendment Act, 2002, a person hiring or 
availing of any services for a consideration was not 
excluded even though the services were availed for any 
commercial purpose, and thus the complaint could be 
maintained before the consumer forum. 
In the instant appeal, the appellant contended that a 
basic error was committed by the National Commission 
inasmuch as it proceeded on the basis that the complaint 
was filed on 1.8.2000, which was prior to the amendment 
c 
of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) by the Amendment Act, 2002. The 
D 
appellant pointed out that the complaint in fact was filed 
on 26.6.2003 i.e. after the amendment of the said Section, 
which came on 15.3.2003. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
E 
HELD: In view of the findings of the National 
Commission tllat the goods sold by the appellant to the 
respondent/complainant amounted to 'goods' and that 
such goods were purchased for commercial purpose of 
earning more profits, there could be no dispute that even 
F 
the services which were offered had to be for the 
commercial purpose. Nothing was argued to the contrary. 
It seems that the whole error has crept in because of the 
wrong factual observation that the complaint was filed on 
1.8.2000. In that view, it has to be held that the complaint G 
itself was not maintainable, firstly, on the count that under 
Section 2(1)(d)(i), the goods have been purchased for 
commercial purposes and on the second count that the 
services were hired or availed of for commercial 
H 
1188 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [201 OJ 15 (ADDL.) S.C.lf.' 
A purposes. The matter does not come even under the 
Explanation which was introduced on the same day i.e. 
on 15.3.2003 by way of tha amendment by the same 
Amendment Act, as it is nobody's case that the goods 
bought and used by the respondent and the services 
B availed by the respondent were exclusively for the 
purpose of earning the respondent's livelihood by means 
of self-employment. In that view, it will have to be held 
that the co'Tlplaint itself was not maintainable in toto. The 
order of :.1e National Commission is set aside and the 
c complaint is dismissed with costs assessed at 
Rs.50,000/-. [Paras 9, 10, 11] [1192-F-H; 1193-A-E] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
10650 of 2010. 
D 
From the Judgment & Order dated 17.12.2009 of the 
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New 
Delhi in F.A. No. 218 of 2004. 
U.U. Lal

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.