This revision petition is against the order dated 06.07.2009 of the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short, he State Commission in First Appeal no. 1741 of 2008. By this order, the State Commission dismissed the appeal of the petitioner against the order dated 31.07.2008 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission I, Jaipur (in short, he District Forum. 2. The petitioner was the opposite party (OP) before the District Forum. The complaint against the OP filed by the respondent/complainant related to the latter alleged deficiency in service in delivering partly damaged consignments of medicines sent by the complainant to a consignee in Patna. The complainant alleged that out of the 2 consignments of medicines, 11 cases/cartons in each consignment, valued in all at Rs.1,79,722/-, were delivered to the consignee in a damaged conditions. The local representative of the OP had acknowledged this. The OP contested the complaint mainly on the ground that the complainant, being a commercial entity, could not be termed a onsumerunder the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, he Act. In addition, the allegation of damage to a part of the consignments was also denied. 3. After considering the pleadings and hearing the parties, the District Forum held that the complainant was indeed a onsumerof the service provided by the OP in terms of the definition under section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act. It also held that 11 cartons of medicines in each of the two consignments were delivered in damaged condition and their value was Rs.1,79,722/-. Accordingly, the District Forum partly allowed the complaint and directed the OP to pay to the complainant Rs.1,79,722/- with interest @ 8% per annum from 13.06.1999 till payment and cost of Rs.2,500/-, within one month from the date of the order failing which the rate of interest was enhanced to 12% per annum. 4. We have heard Mr. Shankar Kumar Jha, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner/OP and Mrs. Geeta A. Kumar, learned counsel of the respondent/complainant. The original record of the District Forum was also gone into. 5. On the reverse side of (the consignment) Docket no. BH 39990 issued by the OP there is a clear endorsement under the signature dated 13.06.1999 of one Sonal Shrivastava, Senior Executive (Sales) mentioning the damage to 11 cartons of medicines. Likewise, the reverse side of Docket no. BH 39992 issued by the OP has a similar endorsement of the same person on the same date certifying damage to 11 cases/cartons of some other medicines sent by the respondent to the same consignee. There is no material to hold that the aforesaid representative of the petitioner/OP did not make these endorsements on these two consignment Dockets on arrival of the goods at the consignee premises. Thus, the fact of delivery of 22 damaged cartons of medicines valued at Rs.1,79,722/- is clearly established. 6. As regards the question of status of the complainant as a onsumer the definition of a onsumerof service as it existed at the relevant time (1999) did not exclude a person availing of any service on payment of consideration even if it was for commercial purpose. This exclusion for commercial purpose was brought in by an amendment to the Act that came into effect from 15.03.2002. 7. In view of the foregoing, we find no jurisdictional error, illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the State Commission affirming the order of the District Forum. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed, with no order as to cost.