M/S POLY MEDICURE LTD. versus M/S BRILLIO TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD

Citation: [2025] 12 S.C.R. 189 · Decided: 13-11-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.B. PARDIWALA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 12 S.C.R. 189 : 2025 INSC 1314
M/s Poly Medicure Ltd. 
v. 
M/s Brillio Technologies Pvt. Ltd
(Civil Appeal No. 6349 of 2024)
13 November 2025
[J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether in respect of the goods purchased/services availed, the 
appellant would qualify as a “consumer” as defined in s.2(1)(d) of 
the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Headnotes†
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – s.2(1)(d) – “consumer” – 
When not – Complainant-appellant (Company) filed complaint 
before the State Commission claiming deficiency in service 
stating that it purchased a software from the respondent but 
the software did not function properly; sought refund of the 
entire amount paid to the respondent – State Commission held 
that the complaint was not maintainable as the complainant 
was not a “consumer” as per s.2(1)(d) since purchase of 
the software license was for a commercial purpose – Order 
affirmed by National Commission – Correctness:
Held: Complainant is a commercial entity – The purchase of 
goods/services (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, 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  
s.2(1)(d) – 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 s.2(1)(d). [Paras 27, 28]
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Explanation to s.2(1)(d) – 
“Commercial purpose”; “Self-employment” – An activity or 
* Author
190
[2025] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
transaction of purchase of goods/services availed, if for a 
commercial purpose or personal use – Determination:
Held: 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 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 – 
There is a difference between a self-employed individual and a 
corporation – The goods purchased 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-complainant purchases a 
software for automating its processes, the object is to maximise 
profits and, therefore, it would not fall within the explanation of 
s.2(1)(d) of the 1986 Act. [Paras 16, 18]
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – s.2(1)(d), s.2(1)(m) – 
“consumer”; “person”:
Held: Definition of “person” in s.2(1)(m) is inclusive and not 
exhaustive – Therefore, even an incorporated company could be 
a consumer within the meaning of s.2(1)(d) read with s.2(1)(m) of 
the 1986 Act. [Para 14]
Case Law Cited
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) – relied on.
Sunil Kohli and Anr. v. Purearth Infrastructure Ltd. (2020) 12 SCC 
235 – distinguished.
Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation and Anr. v. Ashok 
Iron Works Private Ltd. [2009] 1 SCR 1109 : (2009) 3 SCC  
240 – affirmed.
[2025] 12 S.C.R. 
191
M/s Poly Medicure Ltd. v. M/s Brillio Technologies Pvt. Ltd
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Harsolia Motors and Ors. [2023] 3 
SCR 448 : (2023) 8 SCC 362 – explained.
Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust v. Unique Shanti Developers and 
Ors [2019] 14 SCR 563 : (2020) 2 SCC 2

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