PER JUSTICE J.M. MALIK 1. Counsel for the petitioner present. Arguments heard. Both the Fora below have come to the conclusion that the petitioner/ complainant, Santanu Barua, had purchased the vehicle for commercial purpose. In the instant Revision Petition, the counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention towards the grounds of the appeal. The relevant para is reproduced here as under:- “i)The complainant/appellant is a consumer having the vehicle as his only source of earning by means of self- employment which was considered as the outset while the case was heard on admission hearing”. 2. This appears to be a mis-leading argument. The petitioner hems and haws and comes out on both sides of questions. One cannot ride both the horses at one time. The complaint itself clearly, specifically and unequivocally mentions that: “the complainant has been running Transport Business in and around of Kolkata, for the last 10 years and in course of the business of complainant hypothecation to purchase vehicles from any financial institution”. 3. There is a certain aura of inconsistency. Being a commercial transaction, the consumer fora have rightly refused to arrogate to themselves those powers with which those are not armed. 4. Otherwise too, the facts, on merits, are very clear. Petitioner had obtained a loan. He defaulted the same. Pre-possession notice dated 14.08.2012 was sent to him on 17.08.2012. All the legal formalities were performed. There is no deficiency on the part of the OP. 5. No ground. Case is therefore, dismissed. | 
