Delay of 39 days in filing the Revision Petition is condoned.

          Petitioner purchased a lift for Rs.65,000/- from the respondent.  Petitioner found that the lift supplied was defective and accordingly requested the respondent to replace it.  Since the lift was not replaced, petitioner filed complaint before the District Forum seeking a direction to the respondent to pay the price of the lift, i.e., Rs.65,000/- or, in the alternative, to supply a new lift along with costs and damages of Rs.200/- per day.

          District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the respondent to either replace the lift or refund the price of the lift along with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of filing of the complaint till realization.  Rs.2,000/- were awarded towards loss and Rs.5,000/- towards costs.

          Respondent, being aggrieved, filed an appeal before the State Commission.   State Commission came to the conclusion that the petitioner  had  ailed  to  prove  that  the  lift  supplied  was  defective.  State Commission also came to the conclusion that the petitioner was carrying out commercial activity and, therefore, was not a ‘consumer’ with the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act.

          We agree with the view taken by the State Commission.  Admittedly, the petitioner had purchased the lift for use in his business and was not a ‘consumer’.   As per Section 2(1)(d), a person  who  buys  any  goods  for  a  consideration  or  avails  of  any  service  for  a  commercial  purpose,  is  excluded  from  the  definition  of  ‘consumer’.   No merits.   Dismissed.