ORDER

Subhash Chandra, Presiding Member—This Revision Petition has been filed under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, “the Act”) challenging order dated 04.07.2017 of the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Lucknow (in short, the ‘State Commission’) dismissing Appeal No. 1088 of 2002 confirming the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hardoi (in short, “District Forum”) in Complaint Case No. 162 of 2001 dated 03.04.2002.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and given careful consideration to the material placed on record and the arguments urged before us.

3. For the reasons stated in the application for the condonation of delay of 85 days in the filing of this revision petition, the delay was condoned in the interest of justice.

4. The relevant facts of this case, in brief, are that the respondent, who is a railway contractor, had obtained a quotation from the petitioner for the purchase of a “Rail Electric Weld Trimmer Power Pack Version”, a specialized equipment used specifically for the rail section for which it is intended to be used. An order dated 29.07.1998 for consideration of Rs.1,25,000/- to be paid by 30.03.1999 was agreed upon with Rs.50,000/- to be paid as advance within 8 weeks. The order was accepted by the petitioner vide letter dated 05.08.1998 on standard terms and conditions. Petitioner informed respondent that the Trimmer was ready after manufacture on 10.09.1998 followed by various letters dated 21.12.1998, 04.05.1999 and 02.07.1999. The respondent, after a lapse of over 2 years, conveyed vide letter dated 25.04.2001 requesting for refund as the Railways had cancelled his license. Petitioner rejected the request by letter dated 05.05.2001 on the ground that the Trimmer was a specialized equipment manufactured on order. Respondent was held responsible for failure to comply with contract terms.

5. In reply, respondent approached the District Forum through Complaint no. 162 of 2001 claiming refund on the ground that since his license was terminated on 20.03.2000, he had requested for refund of the advance paid vide letter dated 25.04.2001, followed by legal notices dated 25.05.2001 and 21.06.2001. His prayer for refund of Rs.50,000/- with 12% interest p.a. and Rs.10,000/- as compensation for harassment and litigation cost was considered and vide order dated 03.04.2002, the District Forum, on contest, partly allowed the complaint holding that the conditions of sale were printed conditions which would not be binding unless agreed and executed between the parties, which was not the present case. Forfeiture of the advance money paid was not a printed condition either. The District Forum directed the refund of Rs.50,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a. within one month with Rs.2,000/- towards compensation and litigation cost.

6. Aggrieved, petitioner approached the State Commission on the grounds, inter alia, that the District Forum did not render any findings on the issues of maintainability in view of the fact that the transaction was commercial, limitation in view of the delay of over 2 years in the filing of the complaint and the rights of the unpaid seller under the Sale of Goods Act. The State Commission held, after hearing both sides and through a reference to the President in view of dissenting opinions, vide order dated 29.06.2017 that in view of the Amendment Act No. 62 of 2002, Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 stood amended with effect from 15.03.2003 and as the complaint pre-dated the amendment, the issue of ‘commercial’ nature of the activity was not applicable. It was also held that forfeiture of earnest money was not permissible in view of non-compliance with Section 54(2) of the Sales of Goods Act, 1930. The Appeal was partly allowed, and refund of advance was directed without interest. This order is impugned before us.

7. The revision petition has been filed on the grounds that the transaction