The present complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties for deficiency in their services. Opposite party No.1 has filed its preliminary objections mentioning therein, that, the complainant does not fall within purview and scope of Section 2 (1)d of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant himself has admitted in his complaint that, he has suffered financial loss in the business of glass work due to non-delivery of the questioned car which clearly proves that, the car is used by the complainant for his business purpose. The complainant has purchased the car in his firm’s name i.e. M/s. C.A. Glass Works, which clearly proves that, the complainant has also taken benfit of the depreciated value of the car in his income tax returns which proves that, the complainant purchased the car in connection with his business therefore, the complainant does not fall within the definition term “consumer”. It is also mentioned that, the complaint does not fall under the scope of Consumer Protection Act as it is a matter of accidental repairs of car which was delivered for accidental job and after the accidental repair and service, the owner of the car has not taken delivery of the car with melafide intention because, he wanted heavy discount in repair bill. The service provider (opposite party no.1) is legally entitled to receive the payment of the bill which the owner is liable to pay but, he wants to avoid under the pretext of different excuses and therefore, the said complaint needs to be rejected summarily. The complainant has filed his reply to the preliminary objection of the opposite party and mentioned that, the questioned vehicle was used for his personal purposes. It was never used for commercial purposes therefore, the present complaint is not barred by the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. The preliminary objection of the opposite party has no substance therefore, liable to be rejected. The opposite party has moved this preliminary objection with an intention to delay the disposal of the present case.

           We have heard the Learned Counsel for both the parties on preliminary objection and perused the reply of the complainant and other relevant documents available on the record.  

          The opposite party has specifically mentioned that, the vehicle in question was purchased in the name of complainant firm i.e. M/s. C.A. Glass Works. The complainant has not denied this fact. He has mentioned in his reply that, the car in question was not used for commercial purpose rather, it was being used for personal purposes. The allegation contained in Para.5 of the complaint clearly go to show that, the vehicle in question was used for commercial purpose because, the complainant has mentioned that, due to non-delivery of vehicle in question within prescribed time. The complainant suffered loss of Rs.10,00,000/- in glass works business. The Learned Counsel for the opposite party has placed his reliance upon 2014 (I) C.P.R. 376 (N.C.) Duggirala Prasad Babu V/s M/s. Skoda Auto India Pvt. Ltd.  and 2016 (4) C.P.R. Page.773 M/s. Solar Impact and Another V/s M/s. Hotel Samrat Heavens. In 2014 (1) C.P.R. Page.576 (Supra). The Hon’ble National Commission has held that, the person purchasing car for commercial purpose does not fall within the definition of consumer and he cannot maintain consumer complaint. We place our reliance upon the aforesaid pronouncements as well as the principles of law laid down in 2016 (3) C.P.R. Page.520, 2016 (4) C.P.R. Page.773 and Revision Petition No.4520/2012 Prem kumar Bharadwaj V/s Trigun Automobiles and Other decided by Hon’ble National Commission on 05/01/2016 and come to the definite conclusion that, since the complainant has purchased the car in question for commercial purpose therefore, he does not fall within the definition of term ‘consumer’ and he cannot maintain consumer complaint before this Forum. The complainant may have other remedies available before other Forums but, the present complaint is not maintainable before this Forum.

                                In view of the above discussions, the preliminary objection of the opposite party No.1 is upheld and the present complaint    is                     dismissed. Both the parties shall bear their own costs.