PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the Petitioner/OP against the impugned order dated 28.05.2012 passed by the H.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (in short, he State Commission in Appeal No. 06/2011 Avtar Singh Vs. Indusind Bank Ltd. & Anr. by which, order of District Forum dismissing complaint was set aside and Petitioner/OP No. 1 was directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. 2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/Respondent No.1 took a loan of Rs.8,00,000/- for purchase of Truck No.HP65-1930 on 30.5.2005 from OP No. 2 working under OP No. 1. Amount was to be paid in monthly instalments of Rs.20,400/-. Complainant paid monthly instalment upto 31.5.2007. On 31.5.2007, in the early morning, agents of OP No. 1 forcibly removed truck from the custody of the complainant. OP No. 1 got several papers signed from the complainant at Chandigarh and assured him that vehicle would be returned soon after completion of certain formalities, but vehicle was not returned till date. Alleging deficiency on the part of OPs, complainant filed complaint before the District Forum with a prayer to get back Rs.2,67,900/- deposited by him with interest and cost. OPs contested complaint and submitted that complainant does not fall within the purview of consumer, as the complainant is having more than 4 vehicles in his name and complainant also got financed other vehicle No. HP-65-0930. It was further alleged that District Forum has no jurisdiction and complaint is time barred. It was further alleged that cheque issued by the complainant were dishonoured and complainant failed to repay monthly instalments and intimated OPs his inability to pay the dues and in such circumstances, OPs were compelled to take back custody of the financed vehicle and have not committed any deficiency in providing service and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties dismissed complaint on the ground of territorial jurisdiction as well as on limitation in filing complaint. Appeal filed by the complainant/respondent was allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed. 3. None appeared for the respondent even after service and respondent was proceeded ex-parte. 4. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused record. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that District Forum rightly dismissed complaint for want of territorial jurisdiction and limitation, but learned State Commission committed error in allowing complaint. It was further argued that complainant does not fall within the purview of consumer, as vehicle was purchased for commercial purposes; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. 6. Perusal of record clearly reveals that loan documents were executed either at Chandigarh or at Jalandhar. District Forum also observed that Head Office of the Indusind Bank is at Jalandhar while Branch Office is at Chandigarh and no transaction took place within the territorial jurisdiction of Distt. Mandi and learned District Forum rightly came to the conclusion that District Forum had no jurisdiction, as no cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of District Forum. Learned State Commission observed in the impugned order that vehicle was forcibly repossessed by OP No. 1 at place within the jurisdiction of learned District Forum; hence, learned District Forum had jurisdiction to deal with the complaint. Fact of forcibly possessing of vehicle has been denied by OP in its written statement and OP pleaded that vehicle was delivered by the complainant at Chandigarh. There is no evidence on record filed by the complainant to prove the fact that vehicle was forcibly removed by OP No. 1 from the village of complainant falling in District Mandi. No FIR was filed against OP and complaint also filed after about two years. On the other hand, OPs submitted in their written statement that complainant himself surrendered the vehicle at Chandigarh. In such circumstances, learned District Forum rightly observed that learned District Forum had no jurisdiction to deal with the complaint and learned State Commission has committed error in holding that learned District Forum had jurisdiction to deal with the complaint. 7. As far as limitation aspect is concerned, admittedly, complaint was filed on 30.5.2009 and, as per allegation in the complaint; possession of vehicle was obtained by OP No. 1 on 31.5.2007 meaning thereby complaint has been filed within two years, well within limitation. Learned District forum has wrongly observed that vehicle was repossessed on 5.7.2007 and complaint was filed on 6.7.2009, which is time barred. Learned State Commission also mentioned same dates in the impugned order, which are contrary to record. Perusal of record reveals that, as per complaint, vehicle was repossessed by OP on 31.5.2007 and complaint was filed on 30.5.2009, which is within a period of two years and in such circumstances, complaint was filed by complainant within limitation and District Forum committed error in dismissing complaint on the ground of limitation and learned State Commission rightly observed that complaint was filed within limitation; though, mentioned dates of another complaint between the same parties. 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that loan was taken for financing vehicle by the complainant for commercial purposes and in such circumstances, complainant does not fall within the purview of consumer under the C.P. Act. Record reveals that complainant obtained another loan of Rs.7,75,000/- for vehicle HP-65-930 from OP No. 1. OPs in their written statement clearly alleged that complainant is having more than 4 vehicles in his name and this fact has not been denied by the complainant. In such circumstances, it becomes clear that complainant has not availed services of OP for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment and, as services have been availed for commercial purposes, complainant does not fall within the purview of consumer under Section 2 (d) of the C.P. Act and learned District Forum committed error in holding that complainant falls within the purview of consumer. There was no occasion for the OPs to assail this finding before learned State Commission, as complaint had already been dismissed by District Forum on other counts. 9. As the complainant/respondent does not fall within the purview of consumer under the C.P. Act and learned District Forum had no jurisdiction to deal with the complaint, learned State Commission committed error in passing the impugned order, which is liable to be set aside. 10. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner against the respondent is allowed and impugned order dated 28.5.2012 passed by learned State Commission in Appeal No.06/2011 is set aside and complaint filed by the complainant/respondent is dismissed with no order as to costs.