The Supreme Court on February 22, 2022, in the matter of Shrikant G Mantri v Punjab National Bank observed that, if business-to-business disputes were construed as consumer disputes, it would defeat the purpose of providing speedy and simple redressal as envisaged under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986(hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”). The Apex Court also held that the type of a case whether it is commercial or not will entirely depend on the facts and circumstances of the case in hand.

In the instant case, the appellant who is a stock-broker by profession, availed the overdraft facility in connection with his day to day share and stock transactions from the respondent’s bank, with shares as its security. The appellant took the overdraft facility and also sought enhancement of the same from time to time in furtherance of his business as a stock-broker and for the purpose of enhancing the profits therein. Upon the repayment of overdraft, the shares were not returned by the bank to the appellant. Thus, the appellant moved to the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), (hereinafter referred to as “Commission”).

The Commission vide it’s order dated 1st June, 2016, held that the appellant had availed the services of the respondent bank for ‘commercial purpose’ and as such the appellant was not a ‘consumer’ as envisaged under Section 2(1)(d) of the said Act.

Agreeing with the Commission, the Supreme Court observed that if purchase of the goods was for commercial purpose, the purchaser would not be treated as a consumer. Only those transactions for ‘earning of livelihood’ by ‘means of self-employment’ would be included. It was held by the Apex Court that the relationship in this case was purely “business to business and not business to consumer”, which led to the dismissal of the appeal.