PURE BUSINESS TO BUSINESS NOT A CONSUMER DISPUTE - TOP COURT

The bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai of the Top Court noted that pure business-to-business disputes cannot be covered under consumer disputes. To come under the meaning of consumer while availing a service for commercial purposes, he will have to establish that the services were availed exclusively to earn his livelihood through self-employment.

The complainant, a stockbroker, filed a complaint against a bank that granted him an overdraft facility. He claimed 3,75,000 shares of ITC Ltd. along with dividends and all accretions from the bank.

The bank raised the question regarding the maintainability of the complaint stating that the complainant was not a consumer as envisaged u/s 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissed the same after observing that the complainant had availed the services of the Bank for strictly commercial purposes and therefore is not a consumer.

In the appeal before the SC, the appellant-complainant argued that he was a stockbroker and since the services of overdraft facility by the Bank was taken for his profession, the Bank rendered service strictly for purposes of earning his livelihood. 

The bank contended that if any commercial dispute between the service provider and the recipient is included within the definition of 'consumer', it will give rise to floodgates of complaints.

After hearing the parties, the bench noted that "the relationship of the parties is purely business to business and therefore, would come under the ambit of commercial purpose. If the argument placed by the appellant is to be accepted, then the 'business to business disputes would be covered under consumer disputes, thereby defeating the very purpose of providing speedy redressal to consumer disputes."

Given the same, the bench dismissed the appeal.