ORDER

A.K. Tiwari, Presiding Member—This appeal by the complainant/appellant is directed against the order dated 28.01.2009 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, East Nimar, Khandwa (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.98/2006 whereby the complaint filed by the complainant/appellant has been dismissed.

2. The case of the complainant in short is such that she financed a Tata City Ride Passenger Bus 15+1 seater bearing registration no. MP-12, EA-0125 from the opposite party. The complainant deposited Rs.81,950/- as margin money and got finance for a sum of Rs.3,79,000/- which was to be repaid in monthly instalment of Rs.10,870/-. The opposite party took Rs.30,000/- from the complainant towards insurance for a period of three years but the opposite party failed to get insured the vehicle and the complainant herself got the vehicle insured. By the said vehicle the complainant was earning Rs.1,000/- per day by which she was earning her livelihood by way of self-employment.

3. It is alleged that on 21.11.2004, the employees of the opposite party without any notice and court order forcefully took possession of the vehicle by misbehaving with the driver and conductor and parked the same at Sanghi Automobiles, Pandhana. Thereafter, the employees of the opposite party took the vehicle at which place was not informed to her. She lodged a police complaint against the opposite party. Due to forceful seizure of vehicle by the complainant, the complainant is suffering loss of Rs.1,000/- per day. The complainant therefore filed a complaint before the District Commission seeking relief of compensation of Rs.6.00 lac @ Rs.1,000/- per day from the date of filing of complaint, compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental pain along with interest @ 12% p.a. on the whole amount.

4. The opposite party resisted the complaint stating that the complainant was defaulter in payment of instalments of financed amount and for that reason, before taking possession of the vehicle, the complainant was duly informed orally, telephonically and in writing. The complainant herself given possession of the vehicle to the opposite party-financer. The complainant purchased the said vehicle for commercial purpose to earn profit and therefore, the complainant is not a consumer as defined under section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. No pleading with regard to earning livelihood was made. The complainant purchased the vehicle on 29.12.2003 and filed a complaint on 04.08.2006 which was time barred. The complainant got financed the vehicle under Hire Purchase Agreement in which it has been specifically mentioned that in case of default in payment of instalments, the vehicle will be possessed by the financer and will sold in auction. It is therefore prayed that the complaint be dismissed

5. The District Commission dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant/appellant.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record.

7. On going through the record of appeal, we find that during pendency of appellant, the complainant/appellant has filed IA-1 an application along with 6 documents (Annexure 1 to 6), IA-2,an application dated 22.04.2010 under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC along with 7documents and IA-3 an application dated 26.03.2011 under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC along with 10 documents, which were not filed before the District Commission.

8. We have carefully perused the applications and the documents filed by the complainant/appellant on record. On due consideration of the aforesaid documents accompanied with applications filed by the appellant, we are of a considered opinion that the documents deserve to be taken on record since the aforesaid documents were not filed before the District Commission. In this view of the matter we are of a considered view that the matter deserves to be remanded back to the District Commission for decision afresh after considering the documents filed by the appellant before this Commission.

9. I