In Brief
A stock-broker who obtained an overdraft facility from a bank to expand his business and increase profits is not a 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Supreme Court held that while the Act's definition of 'consumer' includes those availing services exclusively for self-employment livelihood, the appellant's relationship with the bank was purely commercial (business-to-business). Since the overdraft was repeatedly enhanced to further expand business operations and generate profits, it fell within the excluded category of 'commercial purpose'. The Court dismissed the appeal, reaffirming that the Act applies to consumer disputes, not commercial transactions, and directing the appellant to pursue remedies through appropriate forums.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.