K.J. Vaidya, President Whether in the first instance opponent not challenging the jurisdiction of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum to entertain and try complaint on the ground that the complainant was not the 'consumer' within the definition meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, in particular when the car was alleged to have been purchased for the 'commercial purpose', the point which requires the close scrutiny of the facts alleged. can be permitted to raise said contention for the first time at such a belated appellate stage and that too to the greatest prejudice of the complainant?: and in the second instance whether the non delivery of car 'within the promised period of 4 to 5 weeks despite receiving full price for the same including the existing excise duty and other incidental statutory charges and thereafter to conveniently deliver the said car after about six months charging additional amount of Rs. 60,139.29 amounts to patent illegalities namely(1) the 'deficiency in service: and(ii) 'unfair trade practice' as defined in Section 2( l)(g)(o) and 2(l)(r) respectively of the Consumer Protection Act 1986? These two questions arise in the ba