In Brief
A stock-broker seeking overdraft facilities from a bank cannot be treated as a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Supreme Court held that while services availed exclusively for earning livelihood through self-employment are protected under the Act, using banking services to expand an established business venture constitutes a commercial, business-to-business transaction. The Act protects consumer disputes, not commercial disputes between business entities. Since the appellant took overdraft facilities specifically to enhance his stock-brokerage profits, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission correctly excluded him from consumer status. The appeal was dismissed, affirming that the Act's purpose is speedy resolution of consumer grievances, not commercial disputes.</summary_100> </invoke>
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.