For the Appellant : Mr. V. Pattabhi Ram, Advocate For Mr. Rajneesh Kumar Singh, Advocate ..2..Dated, the 23rd day of August, 2010

ORDER

Aggrieved by the dismissal of his complaint by the Jharkhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ranchi (in short, ‘the State Commission’) vide order dated 16.04.10, the original complainant has filed the present appeal. The complaint before the State Commission was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, City Corporation Finance (India) Ltd. in repossessing the Tata Hitachi Hydrolic Excavator which was purchased by the complainant at a price of Rs.32,77,608/- after obtaining finance from the said Corporation. The complaint was resisted by the opposite party, inter-alia, on the ground that the complainant was not a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as it stood after amendment by the amending Act 62 of 2002 effecting from 15.03.03 as also denying any deficiency in service and justifying the action of seizure and re-possession due to the default of the complainant to pay certain EMIs as per the hire purchase agreement. The State Commission, going by the respective pleas, has, however, non-suited the complainant primarily on the ground that the complainant was not ..3.. a ‘consumer’ inasmuch as it has failed to establish on record that the machine in question was purchased by him for the purpose of earning livelihood by self-employment. The State Commission while dismissing the complaint has preserved the right of the complainant to seek his remedy before the appropriate forum/court. 2. We have heard Mr. V. Pattabhi Ram, learned counsel for the appellant and have considered his submissions. He seeks to assail the impugned order primarily on the ground that it is not based on correct and proper appreciation of the evidence and the material produced on record and that the State Commission has erred in holding that the complainant is not a ‘consumer’ entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the consumer forum for the redressal of his grievance. In this connection, he has contended that the complaint was filed with the averment that the machine in question was purchased by the complainant for earning his livelihood and, therefore, the State Commission ought to have believed the version of the complainant and should not have held that the complainant is not a ‘consumer’. Even now, it is stated by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is a IIIrd Class (lower category) Civil Contractor and the ..4.. machine in question was purchased by him for executing the work which he was supposed to execute under some contracts. Even if, we believe this aspect, it will be impossible to hold that the complainant is a ‘consumer’ having obtained the service of the opposite party. The inevitable conclusion would that the service availed by the complainant/appellant were for earning profit and not for making his livelihood by self-employment. The State Commission has examined this question in greater detail and have rendered the well reasoned opinion on this question. We do not see any infirmity in the same. The First Appeal is as such dismissed being devoid of any merit. However, it will be open for the appellant to take advantage of the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of “Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute {(1995) 3 SCC 583} in case he is advised to file a suit before a civil court or any other Tribunal/Forum. With these observations, the Appeal stands disposed of.