—Order— By this appeal under s. 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Act No. 68 of 1986) opposite party No. 1 appellant questions the legality and correctness of the order dated 20.1.89 passed by the District Forum, Udaipur in Complaint Case No. 57/Vahan/88. Facts leading to this appeal may briefly be stated as under :— The complainant-respondent No. 1 submitted a complaint before the District Forum, Udaipur on 19-12-88 alleging that truck No. RJQ 7285 was purchased by him in auction on 7-10-87 for Rs. 21,800/- as he gave the highest bid. The complainant paid the entire auction money and requested opposite party No. 1 respondent (sic appellant) to deliver registration certificate and other papers so that he may get the vehicle transferred in his name and after transfer to use the truck for earning profits ¼ykHk izkIr dj ldsa½. Opposite-party No. 1 submitted the application to opposite-party No. 2 to transfer the truck in the name of the complainant. Opposite-party No. 2 informed that the road tax of the truck is outstanding and it is only after depositing the tax due that the registration of the truck can be transferred in the name of the complainant. The complainant informed opposite-party No. 1 in this connection. The transfer could not be affected (sic effected) even after about 14 months from the date of auction i.e. 7-10-87. On account of this the complainant has alleged that he has been suffering loss of income of Rs. 250/- per day and by the time complaint was filed he has already suffered a loss of Rs. 80,000/-. It has been alleged by the complainant that in the absence of transfer of registration in his name the said truck could not be plied and, therefore, he has been suffering loss for which both the opposite-parties No. 1 and 2 are liable. An averment was made by the complainant that he has been suffering loss of Rs. 7,000/-per month on account of the failure of opposite-party No. 1 to get the transfer of registration of the truck effected in his favour. The complaint was registered on 19-12-88 and notices were ordered to be issued to the opposite-parties No. 1 and 2 for the hearing of 27-12-88. On that day Shri B. P. Acharya, Executive Engineer, PHED, Udaipur appeared. Time was allowed to him to file the version of the case. Next date fixed was 10-1-89. The complaint was registered on 19-12-88 and notices were ordered to be issued to the opposite-parties No. 1 and 2 for the hearing of 27-12-88. On that day Shri B. P. Acharya, Executive Engineer, PHED, Udaipur appeared. Time was allowed to him to file the version of the case. Next date fixed was 10-1-89. Nobody appeared on behalf of opposite-party No. 2 before the District Forum, Udaipur. There was a strike of Government employees w.e.f. 9-1-89 and therefore, no appearance was put on behalf of opposite-party No. 1 appellant before the District Forum, Udaipur and so an order to proceed ex-parte was passed on that date. 2. Opposite-party No. 2 sent reply by post. It was stated that the truck which was purchased in auction by the complainant could not be transferred in the name of the complainant as he failed to submit Tax Clearance Certificate. According to opposite-party No. 2 three documents T. O. Form, Sale letter and Tax Clearance Certificate were required prior to the transfer of registration. It has been mentioned in that reply that the complainant was informed that the tax was outstanding against the vehicle and until and unless full amount of tax is deposited the transfer of ownership cannot be effected. The Drilling Department of PHED is engaged in commercial enterprises and as such there is no exemption from payment of tax under the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, 1951. The claim for compensation was resisted. Along with the reply photostat copies of the relevant rule and the government order relating to the grant of irregular exemption of tax to the vehicles owned by the PHED etc. were sent. Opposite-party No. 2 also did not appear. On 16.1.89 the complainant submitted his affidavit and the photostat copies of the documents. The District Forum passed the order on 20-1-89. It held that the complainant is entitled to receive Rs. 3,000/-per month as compensation w.e.f. 9.1.87 from opposite party No. 1 appellant until the vehicle is registered in the name of the complainant. A sum of Rs. 200/- was also awarded as expenses to the complainant from opposite-party No. 1. Hence this appeal as aforesaid. 3. The appeal was filed on 23.5.89. It was accompanied by an application under s. 15, proviso of the Act read with rule 8(4) of the Consumer Protection (Raj.) Rules, 1987. A sum of Rs. 200/- was also awarded as expenses to the complainant from opposite-party No. 1. Hence this appeal as aforesaid. 3. The appeal was filed on 23.5.89. It was accompanied by an application under s. 15, proviso of the Act read with rule 8(4) of the Consumer Protection (Raj.) Rules, 1987. The office reported that the appeal was barred by time as it was presented beyond the period of limitation. By order dated 7-7-89 the delay in filing the appeal was condoned. The appeal was registered and notices were ordered to be issued to the respondents. No written submissions have been filed on behalf of the respondents. 4. We have heard Mr. N. L. Pareek, Addl. Government Advocate for the appellant, Mr. G. K. Bhartiya, Advocate for respondent No. 1 and Mr. Mohan Lal Purohit DTO and considered the record. 5. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that the District Forum erred in holding that the complainant respondent No. 1 is a "consumer" within the meaning of s. 2(1)(d) of the Act. It was submitted that the truck in question was purchased by complainant-respondent No. 1 for commercial purpose and a person who obtains goods for commercial purpose is not included in the definition of consumer as given in s. 2(l)(d)(i) of the Act. In this complaint the complainant has stated that he has not been earning profits though he has invested huge amount in purchasing the truck by public auction. To use the complainants words... ^^Vªd dks vius dke esa ys lds vkSj tks cM+h jde Vªd esa O;; dh gS mldk ykHk og izkIr dj ldsA in para 3 of the complaint the complainant-respondent No. 1 has stated that had the transfer of the truck in his name been effected at that time he could have plied the truck out of its income (mldh vk; ls ykHk izkIr djrk). In para 5 of the complaint the complainant, has stated that on account of non-user of the truck he has been suffering loss of Rs. 7000/- per month which he is entitled to get from the opposite-parties. It may be recalled that the complainant has filed affidavit dt. 18-1-89. He has deposed in the affidavit that he has spent huge amount for the truck but as it was not transferred in his name he has not been able to earn profits. 7000/- per month which he is entitled to get from the opposite-parties. It may be recalled that the complainant has filed affidavit dt. 18-1-89. He has deposed in the affidavit that he has spent huge amount for the truck but as it was not transferred in his name he has not been able to earn profits. In para 2 of the affidavit the following is written; ^^izfrfnu Vªd dh vk; dk 250 :- fnu esa izkFkhZ dks uqdlku gqvk gS fd tks djhc 85 gtkj :- dk uqdlku izkFkhZ dks gks pqdk gSA 6. The averments relating to the loss have also been deposed in the affidavit. In these circumstances the question that arises is if the complainant has purchased the truck for commercial purpose then he is not a consumer within the meaning of s. 2(l)(d)(i) of the Act. "Consumer" has been defined in s. 2(l)(d)(i) of the Act. According to s. 2(l)(d)(i) of the Act even if a person buys any goods for consideration and obtains such goods for any commercial purpose then he is not a consumer. The Commission has occasion to examine the expression "commercial purpose" in Complaint Case No. 4/89 (Smt. Pushpa Meena Vs. Shah Enterprises and others decided on Aug. 8, 1989)(1). It was observed by the Commission in Pushpa Meenas case (supra) as under : "It is well settled that when the expression commercial purpose has not been defined in the Act its common parlance meaning should be given and according to that commercial purpose is that purpose the object or aim of which is to make profit. Commercial emcompasses business activities. It means occupied with commerce." 7. We may refer to M/s Oswal Fine Arts Vs. H.M.T. Madras (Original Petition No. 1/88 decided on 27.4.89 by the National Commission, New Delhi)(2). It was held therein that a person who obtains goods for commercial purpose is specifically excluded from the scope of the expression consumer by the definition contained in s. 2(l)(d)(i) of the Act. In I.L.R. (1957) 2 Allahabad, 407(3) while considering the expression "commercial purposes" it was ruled that crux of the matter is whether it was object or the aim of the Municipal Board to make a profit out of the Water Works undertaking. It was further held that the expression commercial purpose would cover an undertaking the object of which is to make a profit out of the undertaking. It was further held that the expression commercial purpose would cover an undertaking the object of which is to make a profit out of the undertaking. It is aim and not the effect which has to be taken into consideration. Having considered the complaint and the affidavit of the complainant referred to hereinabove, we are of opinion that the complainant has purchased the truck in question in public auction for commercial purpose and as such he is not a consumer as defined in s. 2(l)(d)(i) of the Act. As the complainant is not a consumer he is not entitled to invoke the provisions of the Act and so no relief could be granted to him by the District Forum under the Act. 8. The matter does not rest at that. The District Forum has found that opposite-party No. 1-appellant auctioned the defective truck to the complainant inasmuch as the tax was in arrears and so he could not get it transferred in his name and as a result of that he was prevented from using it. The case of the complainant as disclosed in the complaint is that after purchasing the truck in question on 7.1.87 in public auction, he deposited the entire auction money with the PHED and requested oppsite party No. 1-appellant to handover registration of the truck and all other papers so that he may get his name entered in the registration certificate. An application is said to have been submitted by the complainant to opposite-party No. 2 District Transport Officer who informed him that the tax of the truck is in arrears and so he should first deposit the tax and then only registration can be transferred in his favour. An application dated 11-11-87 was submitted to the Distt. Transport Officer, Udaipur for the transfer of the truck in question. It was stated in that application as under : ^^jkT; ljdkj ds vknsk Øekad ,Q-20¼6½ ih,pbZ@85 fnukad 27-7-85 ds vuqlkj foHkkx dh Vªdsa jksM dj tek djkus esa eqä j[kh xbZ gSA bl lEcU/k esa mikklu lfpo x`g ¼VªkaliksVZ½ vkSj vfr- vk;qä] ifjogu ¼VsDlsku½ o vU; vf/kdkfj;ksa ds lkFk fn- 3-8-83 dks gqbZ ehfVax ds fefuV~l dh izfr Hkh layXu gSA The complainant has also produced letter dt. 13-10-87 which was submitted by opposite party No. 1 appellant to the District Transport Officer. 13-10-87 which was submitted by opposite party No. 1 appellant to the District Transport Officer. In that it is written : ^^—i;k fnukad 7-10-87 ds ckn Vªd lEcU/kh dj mUgha ds }kjk ns; gksaxsA iwoZ esa fu;ekuqlkj foHkkx dh Vªd lHkh djksa ls eqä FkhA The complainant is said to have submitted an application on 14-10-87 to the District Transport Officer in which he stated : ^^okgu dh pkyw DokVj dks VsDl tek djokus dk vknsk gks rks dj tek djokdj jftLVªsku ---------- djokuk pkgrk gwWA 9. The District Transport Officer has mentioned that until and unless arrears of tax are paid it cannot be transferred. The District Transport Officer has mentioned rule 28 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, 1951 which deals with complete exemption from payment of tax. Material part of rule 28 of the aforesaid Rules is as under : "28. Complete exemption from payment of the Tax. Motor Vehicles of the following classes are totally exempt from liability to taxation : (b) Motor Vehicles owned and exclusively used by or on behalf of any department of the Central Government, the Government of Rajasthan or the Government of any other State of India other than those used in connection with the business of a railway or any other commercial enterprise." 10. Photostat copy off the draft inspection report on the audit of receipts and refunds accounts of the Motor Vehicle taxes maintained in the office of the Regional Transport Officer for the period 1984-85 was also submitted. Part II-B of that Report deals with grant of irregular exemption of taxes to the vehicles owned by Public Health and Engineering Department of Rajasthan etc. The relevant part of Part II-B is as follows : "According to Rule 28 (b) of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicle Taxation Rules, 1951, motor vehicles owned and exclusively used by or on behalf of any department of the Central Govt., the Govt. of Rajasthan or the Govt. of any other State of India, other than those used in connection with the business of any commercial enterprise are totally exempt from tax. Further vide State Govt. (Finance Deptt.) letter No. F. 2(6)(1) Raj./8/73 dt. 20-12-77 addressed to Chief Conservator of Forest it was clarified that the vehicle of Public Health Engg. Deptt., Ground Water Deptt. and Jaipur Milk Supply Scheme were not exempt from liability to taxation however, the Special Secy, to the Govt. Further vide State Govt. (Finance Deptt.) letter No. F. 2(6)(1) Raj./8/73 dt. 20-12-77 addressed to Chief Conservator of Forest it was clarified that the vehicle of Public Health Engg. Deptt., Ground Water Deptt. and Jaipur Milk Supply Scheme were not exempt from liability to taxation however, the Special Secy, to the Govt. of Rajasthan in PHED vide their letter No. F. 2(6) PHE/85 dt. 27.7.85 stated that Finance Deptt. of the Govt. has concurred to treat the Public Health Engg. Deptt., as non-commercial for the purpose of Rd. tax and therefore there exists no liability of tax on the vehicles owned by PHED. As the Transport Commissioner Raj. Jaipur did not accept the above Govt. orders on the plea that it were not issued from Home Deptt. of the State Govt. In such position, the PHED cannot be treated as exempted from tax liability." 11. The District Forum was of the opinion that the opposite party No. 1 appellant was well aware that its vehicles are not exempt from the payment of the tax as photostat copy of rule 28 of the aforesaid Rules and the relevant abstract of the audit report were sent. Opposite-party No. 2 insisted for the payment of the arrears of the tax prior to the transfer of the vehicles whereas opposite party No. 1 appellant as is clear from the copies of the letters dt. 11.11. 87 and 13-10-87 that opposite party No. 1 appellant is not liable to pay tax on its vehicles as it is exempt from payment of the tax. S. 31 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 deals with Transfer of Ownership. It provides for the transfer of the ownership of the vehicle. The question that crops up is whether the D.T.O. could refuse registration on the ground of arrears of tax particularly when the transferor stated in writing that it is exempt from the payment of tax. It was stated in A.I.R.1976 Kerala 17(4) that sometimes the registering authority refuses to record a transfer on the ground that tax arrears have not been paid. It was held that this is not warranted by the provisions of s. 31 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It was stated in A.I.R.1976 Kerala 17(4) that sometimes the registering authority refuses to record a transfer on the ground that tax arrears have not been paid. It was held that this is not warranted by the provisions of s. 31 of the Motor Vehicles Act. We may usefully refer to A.I.R. 1978 Karnataka 106(5) wherein it was ruled that Transport Officer cannot refuse to make entries regarding transfer in the registration certificate for non-payment of tax due of vehicle as he is under a statutory duty to make entries regarding transfer of ownership of the vehicles and if the Transport Officer wrongly refuses to transfer the registration of the vehicle, an appeal lies against that order under s. 35 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. It has been held by the Rajasthan High Court in A.I.R. 1959 Rajasthan 175(177)(6) that an order refusing to record a transfer is appealable under s. 35 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The complainant was not well advised when he did not file appeal against the order of the Transport Officer refusing to transfer the registration in his name as the appeal against that order was competent. We have already stated that s. 31 provides procedure for transfer of ownership and as soon as the conditions laid down therein are satisfied it is obligatory on the part of the Transport Officer to transfer the vehicle. As stated above, the Transport Officer had no jurisdiction to refuse to record the transfer on the ground of tax arrears having not been paid. There was a dispute between the Transport Officer who insisted for the payment of the tax arrears and opposite party No. 1 appellant who insisted that it is exempt from payment of tax. In such circumstances the complainant should have deposited the tax arrears and pursued his remedy against opposite party No. 1 appellant, if it was liable to pay tax but he did not do that. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the District Forum was not right in holding that transfer of ownership could not be effected in favour of the complainant as opposite-party No. 1 had sold a defective vehicle inasmuch as at the time of auction there were arrears of tax. We are unable to hold that there was any latent defect in the title of the truck purchased by the complainant-respondent. We are unable to hold that there was any latent defect in the title of the truck purchased by the complainant-respondent. The District Forum has observed that on account of non-transfer of the ownership, the complainant-respondent has been suffering loss and, therefore, the opposite party-appellant should pay compensation at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per month from 9-10-87 until opposite party No. 1 appellant affects the registration or transfer the ownership in the name of the complainant. It was the fault of the Transport Officer who refused registration on wholly untenable grounds. Distt. Transport Officer should have effected the registration of the vehicle in the name of the complainant if the conditions laid down under s. 31 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 were fulfilled. This would have however, not effected the right to recover arrears of tax, if payable on this vehicle by opposite party No. 1 appellant. Opposite party No. 1 appellant will now approach the appropriate authority for deciding the question whether it is liable to pay tax on the truck in question upto the date of the auction. This order will however, not preclude the complainant-respondent to get the transfer of registration in his favour. It is hoped that the District Transport Officer on. fulfilment of the conditions for effecting transfer of regis-tration as provided in the Motor Vehicles Act now in force will do the needful, if transfer of registration has not been effected so far. 12. Opposite party No. 1 appellant also pressed for our consideration that the District Forum erred in law in awarding compensation in lieu of damages @ Rs. 3,000/- per month from 9-10-87 and also compensation at this rate until the registration is effected in favour of the complainant-respondent. We have already referred to averments regarding compensation made by the complainant in his complaint and the affidavit. We have held that registration was wrongly refused by the District Transport Officer under s. 31 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The complainant did not take steps to rectify the refusal of registration by filing an appeal. He did not deposit the arrears of tax so as to mitigate damages. We have held that registration was wrongly refused by the District Transport Officer under s. 31 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The complainant did not take steps to rectify the refusal of registration by filing an appeal. He did not deposit the arrears of tax so as to mitigate damages. It has been held by the National Commission that while s. 14 of the Act read with s. 18 of the Act does empower the State Commission to award compensation for any injury or loss suffered by consumer on account of the negligence of the opposite-party and the claim must be substantiated by sufficient evidence and the compensation has to be assessed not arbitrarily but on the basis of well accepted legal principles. The complainant has purchased the truck for Rs. 21,800/- in public auction. Ordinarily, a new truck costs about 11/2 lacs. As it was not serviceable and so it was auctioned by opposite party No. 1-appellant. The complainant respondent did not take any steps to mitigate the damages. In our opinion, the evidence of the complainant in this regard is not sufficient for awarding compensation @ Rs. 3,000/- per month. The District Forum was not right in awarding compensation from 7-10-87 @ Rs. 3,000/- per month and also future compensation until registration at the same rate. We set aside the findings of the District Forum in this regard also. No other point survives for our consideration in this appeal. We have already held that the complainant-respondent is not a "consumer" and therefore, he is not entitled to invoke the provisions of the Act and no relief can be granted to him under the Act. 13. The result is that the appeal is allowed and the order dt. 20-1-89 passed in Complaint Case No. 57/Vahan/88 by the District Form, Udaipur is set aside and the complaint is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. 14. Order pronounced on September 16, 1989.