Revision petition no.326 of 2012 has been filed against concurrent orders of the fora below. The District Consumer Redressal Forum, Malda allowed the complaint of the present respondent, Mr. Milan Dutta and ordered payment of compensation of Rs.75,000/- with cost of Rs.10,000/- in his favour. Appeal against this order, by the Indusind Bank Ltd. has been dismissed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal, in First Appeal No.FA/275/2010 with the following observations:- e have carefully gone through the impugned judgment and find that the Ld. District forum has really appreciated the cases of respective parties reasonably well and in arriving at a just and proper decision has practically left no stone unturned. When admittedly the vehicle was repossessed by the Respondent and more so, when from the materials on record it was evident that such repossession was without any rhyme and reason, we are of the considered opinion that the Ld. District forum was justified in holding that the OP/Appellant was deficient in service so far as it relates to handing over of the vehicle in question. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the period during which the vehicle was repossessed by the OP, we are of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if the compensation amount of Rs.75,000/- is reduced to Rs.50,000/- and litigation cost is reduced to Rs.5,000/- from Rs.10,000/- thereby keeping the other portion of the impugned judgment unaltered. In the result, the Appeal succeeds in part. Thus, the State Commission has agreed with the District Forum, except to the extent of the amount of compensation, which is reduced to Rs.50,000/- and cost, which is reduced to Rs.5,000/-. 3. The case of the Complainant before the District Forum related to purchase of a mini truck, with the assistance of a loan taken from the revision petitioners/OPs. Allegedly, the vehicle was forcibly repossessed on 21.9.2008, together with the load of paddy it was carrying. The Complainant lodged a police complaint, which was sent by the Chief Judicial Magistrate for inquiry by the police. As per the complaint petition, the Gajoli Police recovered the truck in question and eventually returned it to the Complainant, as per the order of the Court passed on 15.1.2009. Thereafter, the consumer complaint was filed on 18.3.2009, with the prayer that he should be given the NOC by the OP together with compensation of Rs.1 lakh and cost of Rs.25,000/- 4. Per contra, the case of the OP/revision petitioner was that there was no alternative left except to repossess the vehicle, as the Complainant was habitual defaulter. The vehicle was repossessed as per the terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties. 5. We have carefully considered the records of the case and heard Mr. Rana Ranjit Singh, Advocate for the revision petitioners. At the outset, it needs to be mentioned that in para 22 (G) of the revision petition it is contended that there was no case for award of compensation to the respondent, as the vehicle, which was repossessed on 21.9.2008, was with the revision petitioners only till 23.10.2008, when it was taken away by the Police. This is clearly an attempt on the part of the revision petitioners/OPs to benefit from the action flowing from the criminal complaint filed by the Complainant. It also hides the fact that the Complainant was put back in possession of the vehicle, not due to any act of the petitioners, but in compliance with the orders of the Chief Judicial Magistrate. We therefore, reject this plea on the threshold itself. 6. Further, it was argued on behalf of the revision petitioners that the Complainant had purchased a commercial vehicle for commercial purposes. It had a commercial registration and was insured under a commercial package policy. Therefore, it is argued that the complainant is not a onsumerwithin the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. We find from the written statement of the OPs before the District Forum that there was a mention of the concerned mini truck being registered as a light commercial vehicle and being utilized as such. But the written statement does not show how the requirement of Section 2 (1) (d) of Consumer Protection Act, (which defines the word onsumer as amended with effect from 15.3.2003, is violated. With this amendment, the following explanation has been added to the provision:- xplanation- For the purposes of this clause, ommercial purposedoes not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. 7. There is nothing in the pleadings before the District Forum to show that any evidence was led by the OPs to prove that purchase of this mini truck by the Complainant was not for the purposes of self-employment. During the course of the arguments before us, learned counsel for the revision petitioners also admitted that the question of self-employment has not been directly raised in the fora below. On the other hand, the order of the District Forum directly refers to the argument on behalf of the Complainant that he was an unemployed youth, who had purchased this mini truck to maintain his livelihood. The District Forum has also noted that although the Complainant had engaged a driver to run this vehicle, this was the only vehicle he possessed. The revision petition does not show what evidence was led before the District Forum on behalf of the OPs to challenge the above position. Instead, in para 22 (M) of the revision petition raises an illogical argument that arning the livelihood by means of self-employment means goods brought for use by the person for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment i.e. if the goods are purchased by the purchaser for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment he will be a consumer as defined under this Act. Thus, it is clear that no case is made out to show that the Complainant was not a consumer. 8. We therefore come to an inescapable conclusion that the revision petitioners have failed to make out any case against the correctness of the impugned order. The revision petition is therefore, dismissed for want of merit. No order as to costs. |