IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI SECOND APPEAL NO. NC/SA/692/2025 (Against the Order dated 27.03.2025 in Appeal SC/9/FA/115/2025 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Uttar pradesh)

WITH NC/IA/12657/2025 (EXEMPTION FROM DIM DOCUMENTS)

NC/IA/12655/2025 (STAY)

NC/IA/12656/2025 (CONDONATION OF DELAY)

JIBRIL S/o. IBRAHIM R/o VILLAGE PURE THAKURAIN MAJRA, PURE CHITAI, PO- GORIABAD TEHSIL-GAURIGANJ, DISTRICT-AMETHI-227405 UTTAR PRADESH. Petitioner(s)

Versus HDB FINANCIALSERVICES LTD NEW NO. 128/4F (OLD DOOR NO. 53A)

4TH FLOOR M N OFFICE COMPLEX PRIX ROAD, CHENNAI-660006 Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE DR. INDER JIT SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, MEMBER For the Appellant (s) : MR. MAIBAM N. SINGH, ADV. &

M R. KRISHNAKANTA, ADV.

For the Respondent(s) MR. RIZW AN, ADV. (V.C) &

MS. BHAMIKA VERMA, ADV.

Dated : 13.01.2026

ORDER

1.

Heard counsel for the appellant and counsel representing the other side. Challenge is to order dated 27.03.2025 of the State Com m ission vide which First Appeal filed by R-1 herein i.e., HDB Financial Services Ltd., was allowed, order of the District Commission was set aside and it was held that Consumer Complaint is not m aintainable as the vehicle in question has been bought for a commercial purpose. The vehicle in question is a 12-wheelers vehicle which is a goods carrier as per the registration certificate on record. In this regard, relevant portion of the order of the State Commission is reproduced below:

“3. As per the facts of the complaint, the complainant had purchased 12 wheeler vehicle from opposite party no. 1 M/s Amit Auto Wheelers Pvt. Ltd. It was taken in the year 2018, for which a loan of Rs. 26,13,280/- was obtained from opposite party no.3, which was to be paid in 47 installments.

4. From the perusal of this statement, it becomes clear that the vehicle in question was purchased by the complainant for business purpose and a loan of Rs. 26,13,280/- was taken. The complainant has nowhere mentioned in the complaint that this commercial vehicle was purchased for livelihood, whereas in the case of M/s Heights Trade (P) Ltd. vs UCO Bank, the Hon'ble National Commission has given the conclusion that the consumer complaint is not maintainable on breach of contract made for business purpose. In the present case also, the vehicle which has been purchased purely for business purpose. The complainant has nowhere stated that this vehicle has been purchased for livelihood, hence the consumer complaint is not maintainable. The District Consumer Commission has passed its decision on the non-consumer complaint, which is Hable to be dismissed. .

2. W e have carefully gone through the order of the State Commission, District Commission, other relevant record and heard the parties. Although during the hearing counsel for the appellant contends that he bought the vehicle in question for his livelihood, nowhere in his complaint there is any mention of his having bought the vehicle for livelihood.

3. Section 51(2) envisages a second appeal if it involves a substantial question of law. Section 51(3) further states that such substantial questions of law have to be listed in the memorandum of appeal. In the present appeal, the following substantial questions of law have been listed in the memorandum of appeal:

I.FEDC W BA hether the Hon'ble State Commission erred in law in holding that the Appellant/Complainant is not a "consumer" under Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, merely on the ground / that the vehicle was a commercial vehicle, without examining r whether it was purchased for the purpose of earning livelihood by t- means of self-employment?

Whether the Hon'ble State Commission failed to appreciate the settled legal position that purchase of a commercial vehicle for self-employment falls within the definition of "consumer" under the Act, as upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble National Commission in catena of judgments?

Whether