In Brief
Two unemployed graduates in partnership purchased an advanced photography machine for Rs 62 lakhs to start a small photography business for self-employment and livelihood. The machine had serious defects that persisted beyond warranty expiry despite manufacturer claims of fixing them. The National Commission rejected their complaint, holding they were not 'consumers' because the purchase was for commercial purposes. The Supreme Court allowed their appeal, holding that self-employment ventures fall within consumer protection laws' definition of 'consumer', distinct from purely commercial, large-scale profit-making activities. The manufacturer is liable for the defective machine.",
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.