Heard counsel for the Petitioner. The revision petition is filed against concurrent findings of two fora below. The petitioner had purchased 12 nos. Apollo tyres. According to him one of the tyres had burst and other tyres had manufacturing defects. The Respondent had taken the plea that it was commercial transaction and the petitioner is not a consumer. When a person buys 12 tyres in one go that itself shows that the tyres are not purchased for one vehicle but for a number of vehicles. In such an eventuality the transaction, in question, will be a commercial transaction and the Petitioner cannot be considered a onsumer; within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Besides this, no evidence was filed by the Petitioner to establish that the tyres, in question, suffered from any manufacturing defects. Since the petitioner had failed to prove that the tyres had any manufacturing defects, the fora below had very rightly dismissed the complaint and the appeal filed by the petitioner. The revision petition is hereby dismissed as we do not find any jurisdictional error, illegality or material irregularity in the orders of fora below so as to interfere under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.