The State Commission has non-suited the complainant/petitioner holding that the complainant did not fall within the definition of ‘Consumer’ as defined under Section 2 (1) (d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as the entire dispute arose from a -2- Hire Purchase Agreement and the same did not constitute the dispute as envisaged under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. For this, the State Commission has relied upon the judgment of this Commission in III (2006) CPJ 247 (NC) Ram Deshlahara vs. Magma Leasing Ltd.” Counsel for the respondent fairly concedes that the impugned order be set aside and the case be remitted back to the State Commission to decide both the appeals afresh taking the complainant to be a ‘Consumer’. We set aside the impugned order and remand back the case to the State Commission to decide both the appeals, i.e. one filed by the complainant as well as the other filed by the respondent/opposite party afresh taking the complainant to be a ‘Consumer’. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the State Commission on 05.04.2011. -3- Since it is an old case, we would request the State Commission to dispose of the appeals within four months of the first date of appearance. | 
