Challenge in these proceedings is to the order dated 7.05.2011 passed by Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short he State Commission in appeal no. 40/2010. The appeal before the State Commission was filed against the order dated 15.12.2009 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimla in complaint No. 246/ 2008 by which order the District Forum has partly allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party supplier of x-ray machine to refund cost of the machine amounting to Rs.4 lakh with interest @9% p.a. alongwith compensation of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.3,500/- as the litigation expenses. The opposite party supplier aggrieved by the same filed appeal which has been allowed by the State Commission and the order passed by the District Forum was set aside primarily on accepting the plea of the appellant supplier of the machine that the complainant was not consumer within the meaning of section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act inasmuch as the machine was purchased for commercial purpose and the dispute raised in regard to the same could not be the subject matter of a consumer dispute before a consumer Fora. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner / complainant and have considered his submissions. He would assail the finding of the State Commission primarily on the ground that it is not based on correct and proper appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence and material brought on record. In particular, he has invited our attention to the averments made in para 2 of the complaint as also the finding of the District Forum where it is recorded that the machine having been purchased by the complainant is for earning the livelihood of the complainant was upheld. Machine was purchased by the son of the complainant and she was the beneficiary. We must reject this contention because going by the nature of the machine and the purpose for which the machine was acquired and used, i.e., installed in a poly clinic, where so many other facilities must have been put in service, the purchase of the machine cannot be said only for earning livelihood of the complainant, who was not even the purchaser of the machine. In our view the State Commission has considered the question in a correct perspective by holding that the petitioner was not a consumer. We, therefore, agree with the said finding and dismiss the revision petition, however, with liberty to the petitioner / complainant to work out her remedy, if any, in accordance with law before the appropriate court / tribunal. In doing so, if the limitation comes in her way, she can take advantage of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of axmi Engineering Works Vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute[1995 (3) SCC 583].