JUSTICE J.M. MALIK 1. The main controversy swirls around the question hether an Agreement to purchase a Lift for the Hospital, which is not a Charitable Hospital, is a commercial transaction? 2. The present complaint has been filed by M/s Rungta Institute of Medical Sciences (P) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as IMS in short), through its Director, Shri Girdhari Lal Rungta. We have heard Sh.Girdhari Lal Rungta. M/s. ECE Industries Ltd., the opposite party in this case, agreed to supply a Lift (Elevator) to the complainant. Thereafter, a dispute cropped up between the parties on the price of the lift. The complainant filed this complaint case on 23.07.2012, with the following prayer :- ) to direct the opposite party to refund equivalent value of advance of Rs.20,000/- paid by him, which has been devalued to Rs.55,872/- as per the details stated in para 7 above. ii) to direct the opposite party to pay Rs.9,15,873/- towards compensation on account of interest, as per the details stated in para 7 above, on account of money blocked from date of payment, to be corrected till date of actual payment. iii) to direct the opposite party to pay equivalent value of Rs.30,000/- paid by him, which has been devalued to Rs.83,808/- as per the details stated in para 8 above. iv) to direct the opposite party to pay Rs.13,73,810/- towards compensation on account of interest, as per the details stated in para 8 above, on account of money blocked from date of payment to be corrected till date of actual payment. v) to direct the opposite party to pay equivalent value of Rs.65,000/-, paid by him, which has been devalued to Rs.1,81,584/- as per the details stated in para 13 above. vi) to direct the opposite party to pay Rs.28,04,423/- towards compensation on account of interest, as per the details stated in para 13 above, on account of money blocked from date of payment, to be corrected till date of actual payment. vii) to direct the opposite party to pay equivalent value of Rs.3,95,000/- paid by him, which has been devalued to Rs.11,03,470/-, as per the details stated in para 16 above. viii) to direct the opposite party to pay Rs.1,70,42,263/- towards compensation on account of interest, as per the details stated in para 16 above, on account of money blocked from date of payment, to be corrected till date of actual payment. ix) to direct the opposite party to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards costs, follow up, mental agony & harassment till the date of filing of this complaint and further amount so incurred, if any. x) further orders be made as this Honle Commission may deem fit and proper. And for which act of kindness the complainant shall every pray 3. The Director of the complainant submits that the complainant is a hospital. He also admitted that this is not a charitable hospital. He, however, contended that the lift facility is provided to the patients of the said hospital. The Honle Apex court in its authority reported in Kalpavruksha Charitable Trust Vs. Toshniwal Brothers (Bombay) Pvt.Ltd & Anr, AIR 1999 SC 3356, was pleased to hold :- . It is, therefore, clear that in spite of the commercial activity, whether a person would fall within the definition of onsumeror not would be a question of fact in every case. The National Commission had already held on the basis of the evidence on record that the appellant was not a onsumer as the machinery was installed for ommercial purpose We have been again referred to various documents, including the roject document submitted by the appellant itself to the Bank for a loan to enable it to purchase the machinery in question, but we could not persuade ourselves to take a different view. 9. In the instant case, what is to be considered is whether the appellant was a onsumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and whether the goods in question were obtained by him for esaleor for any ommercial purpose It is the case of the appellant that every patient who is referred to the Diagnostic Centre of the appellant and who takes advantage of the CT Scan, etc., has to pay for it and the service rendered by the appellant is not free. It is also the case of the appellant that only ten percent of the patients are provided free service.That being so, the oods(achinery, which were obtained by the appellant, were being used for ommercial purpose 4. Following words occur in Section 2(1)(d)(ii) and the Explanation appended to it :- i) but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose Explanation :- For the purposes of this clause, ommercial purpose does 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 5. It cannot be said that the hospital is transacting the oods (Lift) for the purposes of earning its livelihood, by means of self-employment. 6. Secondly, the case is barred by time. The cause of action arose in 2006, 2008 or at the most in 2009. Mere correspondence does not extend the Limitation Representation and reply can be created at subsequent time as well. The crux of the matter is when the cause of action actually arose. First denial is to be considered. Subsequent denials on the same lines, do not extend the period of limitation. 7. For all these reasons, the complainant has made a feckless attempt to invoke the jurisdiction of this Commission. Consequently, the present complaint is dismissed with costs in the sum of Rs.10,000/- which be deposited with the Prime Minister Relief Fund towards Uttarakhand Tragedy, within 60 days, otherwise, it will carry interest at the rate of 9% P.A. Registrar of this Commission to report compliance.