PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 03.11.2011 passed by the learned West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata (in short, he State Commission in F.A. No.416/2009 Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mr. Chaman Lal by which while dismissing appeal order of District Forum passed in favour of the complainant-respondent was affirmed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant-respondent purchased a tractor from M/s. Kisan Motors for Rs.4,05,000/-. Complainant paid a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as margin money and rest of the amount was financed by the petitioner-OP. Complainant paid Rs.20,000/- to OP towards instalment of the tractor. On 31.3.2008, some 5-6 persons representing themselves to be the officials of the petitioner misbehaved and manhandled the complainant and forcibly took away the tractor along with trolley as the complainant failed to pay EMI. Complainant submitted that he approached the OP and wanted to pay monthly EMI but of no avail, hence, filed complaint. OP admitted financing of tractor by OP-petitioner and submitted that 35 instalments of Rs.10,580/- per month were to be paid by the complainant. It was further alleged that complainant paid only Rs.1,25,000/- as margin money instead of Rs.1,50,000/-. Petitioner admitted receipt of Rs.20,000/- on 21.8.2007 from the complainant and further alleged that this amount was paid after 7 months. It was further submitted that possession of the tractor was not taken forcibly and also submitted that possession of tractor without trolley was taken on 3.1.2008 on surrender and intimation to this effect was given to hirer, guarantor and police authorities. In spite of several notices complainant failed to pay instalments and ultimately after obtaining report from the surveyor, tractor was sold in auction for Rs.1,75,000/-. It was further alleged that tractor was purchased by the complainant for commercial purpose, hence, District Forum had no jurisdiction and complainant does not fall within the purview of consumer, hence, complaint may be dismissed. District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner/OP as under: 6 (i) The opposite party is directed to adjust the sale proceeds of the vehicle towards the satisfaction of the dues by calculating its market value by deducting 20% of the amount from Rs.4,05,000/- i.e. the purchase price of the vehicle by the complainant instead of Rs.1,75,000/- and also to adjust the margin money of Rs.1,25,000/-, Rs.20,000/- amount deposited on account of instalment and Rs.50,000/- as amount spent for preparation of trolley, after adjusting unpaid instalments till the date of seizure of the vehicle. It is further directed that the after adjustment of the amounts as aforesaid, if it is found that the excess amount has been paid by the complainant, the same shall be refunded to him 3. Petitioner preferred appeal against the order of the District Forum which was dismissed by impugned order. 4. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and respondent in person and perused record. Even before the State Commission the respondent represented himself in person and was not represented by any Advocate. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as the tractor was purchased for commercial purposes, complainant was not a consumer and District Forum had no jurisdiction to decide the complaint. In paragraph 3 of the complaint, the complainant has specifically mentioned that in absence of the documents he was unable to ply the vehicle for any commercial purpose without its proper registration for about 6 months. The same fact has been mentioned in his affidavit. Thus, it becomes clear that the tractor was purchased for commercial purpose whereas he was agriculturist and in such circumstances, the complainant does not fall within the purview of consumer and learned District Forum and learned State Commission has committed error in allowing complaint as the complaint was liable to be dismissed on this count alone. 6. It is an admitted case that petitioner financed tractor and Loan-cum-Hypothecation Agreement was executed between the complainant and the petitioner and pursuant to this agreement, the petitioner was bound to pay instalments. Even after 7 months, the Complainant paid only Rs.20,000/- towards instalment and failed to pay rest of the instalments and in such circumstances possession of the tractor was taken by the representative of the petitioner. Petitioner submitted that forcibly possession of the tractor was taken from him. Learned District Forum has also come to the conclusion that in absence of affidavit of Gopi Chand who surrendered vehicle on behalf of the complainant it cannot be presumed that tractor was surrendered by Gopi Chand as representative of the complainant particularly when complainant has denied any acquaintance with Gopi Chand. The petitioner has placed copy of Annexure 6 letter of surrender by the hirer along with Annexure P7, general information of the vehicle and both these documents contain signatures of Gopi Chand along with date of 3.1.2008 meaning thereby possession of tractor was taken by petitioner on 3.1.2008 from Gopi Chand. Gopi Chand has specifically mentioned in surrender letter that this tractor is plied in his observance. According to the complainant, petitioner took possession of the tractor forcibly on 31.3.2008 and same fact has been mentioned in complainant affidavit whereas according to surrender letter possession was obtained on 3.1.2008 instead of 31.3.2008. Not only this, information to hirer, guarantor and two police stations was also given by the petitioner and in such circumstances it cannot be believed that possession of tractor was taken forcibly by petitioner on 31.3.2008 and learned District Forum has committed error in drawing inference that possession of tractor was taken forcibly by petitioner. Had possession of tractor being taken forcibly by petitioner representative after manhandling the complainant on 3.1.2008, or 31.3.2008, complainant must have sustained injuries and lodged report with the police station or any other authority. When the tractor was in possession of Gopi Chand, complainant should have filed his affidavit to prove the fact of forcibly possession. Complainant filed this complaint on 7.11.2008 and keeping silence till that date from 3.1.2008 or 31.3.2008 makes it crystal clear that possession of the tractor was not obtained by representatives of the petitioner by use of force. Honle Supreme Court has recently in Suryapal Singh Vs. Siddha Vinayak Motors & Anr. II (2012) CPJ 8 (SC) held: nder the Hire Purchase Agreement, it is the financier who is the owner of the vehicle and the person who takes the loan retain the vehicle only as a bailee/trustee, therefore, taking possession of the vehicle on the ground of non-payment of instalment has always been upheld to be a legal right of the financier. This Court vide its judgment in Trilok Singh & Ors. V. Satya Deo Tripathi, AIR 1979 SC 850, has categorically held that under the Hire Purchase Agreement, the financier is the real owner of the vehicle, therefore, there cannot be any allegation against him for having the possession of the vehicle. This view was again reiterated in K.A. Mathai @ Babu & Anr. v. Kora Bibbikutty & Anr., 1996 (7) SCC 212; Jagdish Chandra Nijhawan v. S.K. Saraf, 1999 (1) SCC 119; Charanjit Singh Chadha & Ors. V. Sudhir Mehra, VI (2001) SLT 883=III (2001) CCR 232 (SC)=2001 (7) SCC 417 following the earlier judgment of this Court in Sundaram Finance Ltd. V. The State of Kerala & Anr., AIR 1966 SC 1178; Smt. Lalmuni Devi v. State of Bihar & Ors., I (2001) SLT 26=2001 (2) SCC 17 and Balwinder Singh v. Asstt. Commissioner, CCE, V (2005) SLT 195=III (2005) CCR 8 (SC)=2005 (4) SCC 146 7. Record clearly reveals that petitioner issued notice to the complainant from time to time and finally by letter dated 29.12.2007 the entire loan was recalled but complainant failed to repay the loan amount. Ultimately, vehicle was sold in auction for Rs.1,75,000/- on 18.8.2008 and even before auction notice was given to the complainant and his guarantor on 17.7.2008 to pay total outstanding amount of Rs.2,45,738/-. In the absence of payment of instalments and due amount, if possession of vehicle was taken by petitioner or surrendered by complainant and sold in auction, petitioner has not committed any deficiency in providing service merely because 20 month old tractor which was purchased for Rs.4,05,000/- was sold for Rs.1,75,000/-. Learned State Commission has wrongly observed in its order that neither any legal procedure was followed by the OP for selling the vehicle in public auction nor notice was issued to the complainant giving opportunity to purchase the vehicle at a lower price. This observation is contrary to record as after giving notice vehicle was sold in auction that too at the price approved by the valuer in Valuation Certificate, Annexure P-9. Learned District Forum in allowing complaint and learned State Commission in upholding order of the District Forum have committed error and orders passed by the State Commission/District Forum are liable to be set aside. 8. Consequently, the revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and order of the learned State Commission dated 3.11.2011 passed in F.A. No.416/2009 Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mr. Chaman Lal and order of the District Forum dated 26.8.2009 in Complaint Case No.86/2008 are set aside and complaint is dismissed with no order as to cost.