In Birla Technologies Ltd v Neutral Glass and Allied Industries Ltd, the Supreme Court held that goods and services hired for commercial purposes cannot be the subject of a consumer complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Birla Technologies developed software for Neutral Glass, some of which was found to be unsatisfactory. Subsequently, Neutral Glass sent a legal notice to Birla Technologies alleging deficiency in services of all seven modules that were developed. Neutral Glass followed this up with a complaint to the state consumer commission.
Replying to the complaint, Birla Technologies raised a preliminary objection that Neutral Glass was not a “consumer” within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act and sought a decision on this preliminary objection. By its order of 4 March 2004, the state commission accepted Birla’s preliminary objection and dismissed the complaint.
Neutral Glass appealed this decision before the National Commission, which by its order of 17 December 2009 held that the goods purchased were being used by the respondent for a commercial purpose. Therefore, while Neutral Glass was not a consumer within the meaning of the act, it was entitled to maintain a complaint under the act with respect to the deficiency in service during the one year warranty period.
Birla Technologies appealed to the Supreme Court, which held that there is a clear-cut finding that the software in question amounted to sale of goods for commercial purpose. As such, the complaint was not maintainable.
