Heard Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner/Opposite Party. 2. He has argued that the Respondent/Complainant had admittedly employed a driver to ply the vehicle/truck in question. Consequently, he was using the vehicle for commercial purpose and the same was not in the course of self-employment. 3. Ld. Counsel has also argued that the directions to pay compensation to the Complainant @ 1,000/- per day till the date of actual repair to hand over the vehicle to the Complainant in a running condition within 15 days, from the date of Order of the District Forum, was also exorbitant. 4. We find no merit in the above submissions. 5. The Ld. District Forum in its Order dated 02/11/2023 had rightly referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Laxmi Engineering Works V.s PSG Industrial Institute 1995 Vol.II CPJ I (SC)”, in which it had been held that a buyer taking the assistance of one or two persons to assist him in operating the vehicle or machinery purchased, does not cease to be ‘Consumer’. It was the specific case of the Respondent/Complainant that the vehicle was purchased by him for his own livelihood. 6. Further, as he was unable to earn his livelihood due to vehicle not being pliable, so he certainly deserved compensation for the period when he was unable to do so. 7. We therefore find no grounds in the concurrent decisions of both the Ld. Fora below. 8. Dismissed. | 
