NCDRC Order - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court Clarifies: Buying Software for Business Is Not ‘Consumer’ Activity

3Feb

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies: Buying Software for Business Is Not ‘Consumer’ Activity

The Supreme Court held that a company purchasing software to automate and streamline its core, profit-generating business operations does so for a "commercial purpose" under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Consequently, it does not qualify as a "consumer" and cannot maintain a complaint before a consumer forum for alleged deficiency in such services. Facts Of The Case: M/s Poly Medicure Ltd., the appellant, is a company engaged in the import and export of medical devices. To implement an export/import documentation system at its plant, it purchased a product license for the "Brillio Opti Suite" software from M/s Brillio Technologies Pvt. Ltd., the respondent. After making the requisite payment, the appellant alleged the software was defective and non-functional. Cla...

Supreme Court Sets Guidelines: What Constitutes an “Accidental Fire” for Insurance?

The Supreme Court held that in fire insurance claims, the precise cause of fire is immaterial unless fraud or instigation by the insured is proven. The insured is not required to prove the exact origin if the loss is due to fire. Exclusion clauses must be interpreted narrowly, and coverage provisions broadly, with ambiguities resolved in favor of the insured. Facts Of The Case: The case involves cross-appeals arising from a fire insurance claim dispute. Orion Commerx Pvt. Ltd. (the Insured) suffered a fire at its premises on September 25, 2010. The National Insurance Co. Ltd. repudiated the claim, primarily relying on the report of its final Surveyor, which concluded the fire was not accidental and originated from multiple sources, thus excluding it from policy coverage...

Supreme Court Upholds Buyer’s Right: Builder Must Pay 18% Interest for Delay, Same Rate It Charged

The Supreme Court held that while there is no absolute rule for parity in interest rates between builders and buyers, the principle of equity and fairness may warrant it in cases of one-sided agreements and egregious conduct. The Court modified the awarded interest from 9% to 18% p.a., aligning the builder's liability for delay with the rate it charged the buyer, to serve the ends of justice. Facts Of The Case: The appellant booked a plot in the respondent's project in 2006, paying a significant advance. A Plot Buyer Agreement was executed in 2007, stipulating possession within 24 months of sanction of service plans and allowing the respondent to charge 18% p.a. interest on delayed payments by the appellant. By 2011, the appellant had paid over ₹28 lakhs. That year, the respondent invoke...