In Brief
Two unemployed graduates purchased a defective photo-processing machine (Agfa Minilab) for ₹62 lakh to start a small photography business for self-employment and livelihood. The machine had serious technical and software defects that were never resolved despite repeated complaints and warranty service visits. The State Commission held the respondents liable for compensation, but the National Commission reversed this, holding the appellants were not 'consumers' under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 since they purchased for commercial purposes. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that where goods are purchased exclusively for earning livelihood by self-employment—even with hired operators' assistance—the purchaser qualifies as a 'consumer'. The distinction between 'commercial purpose' and 'self-employment' is fact-dependent; here, the appellants' small-scale venture for livelihood fell within consumer protection. Respondents held jointly and severally liable."
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.