Per Justice Mr. S.B. Mhase, Hon’ble President :

          Heard Ld. Counsel. This is a complaint filed claiming relief to grant award of `25,00,000/- against the Opponent Company for detention of motor vehicle and destroying business of Complainant and for selling Complainant’s vehicle by colorization practice and without considering market value and without following due process of law.

          Admittedly, the Complainant is carrying out a business of transport.  On enquiry, Ld. Advocate submitted that the Complainant possesses four such vehicles. He has taken finance from the Opponent for purchase of vehicle (Lorry) No. HR 55-G-1359.  So this is a transport vehicle for which finance was taken.  Thus the whole activity is a commercial activity of the Complainant and loan was availed and vehicle was taken by Complainant for said commercial activity.  These facts are not disputed.  Therefore, the transaction for which service was availed is of a commercial nature as Complainant is having four vehicles and on that vehicles employees are employed.  Therefore, it cannot be said to be commercial transaction exclusively for livelihood of the Complainant by self-employment.  Complainant is not a ’consumer’ in view of the definition of ’consumer’.  Therefore, complaint is not tenable.  Hence it is hereby dismissed as not tenable in law.

Pronounced dated 7th June 2011.