Judgment 1. A complaint has been filed by the respondent No. 3 against the appellant and another before the State commission constituted under the provisions of the Consumer Protection act, 1986 alleging some consumer dispute. The Commission took cognizance of the matter and was proceeding with the same when the appellant, who was one of the opposite parties, moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution urging that the State Commission had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The appellant could not succeed before the learned trial Judge and has accordingly moved us in appeal and has strenuously contended that the alleged complaint could not be taken cognizance of by the State Commission. 2. THE State Commission, like any other Tribunal, has obviously all the jurisdiction to decide about its own jurisdiction. We have taken note of the fact that the State Commissions are to be presided over by one who has been or is a Judge of the High Court. A Tribunal of that status can obviously be trusted to decide the question of jurisdiction, if raised, in a judicial manner and in accordance with law. Therefore, unless there is a compelling necessity the High Court should not take upon itself the burden of deciding the question of jurisdiction of the Commission without giving the Commission a reasonable opportunity of deciding that question. We do not say, as we cannot, that the High Court cannot entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the jurisdiction of the state Commission. But when the State Commission is in seisin of a matter, the tendency of the parties to rush to the High Court at every drop of a hat must be discouraged. As the remedy on the question of jurisdiction is readily, adequately and also effectively available before the State Commission, we should ordinarily refuse to entertain such a question by-passing that Commission. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') is a social welfare legislation enacted to provide for better protection of the interest of the consumers and different redressal forums have been established under the said Act for settlement of consumer disputes. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') is a social welfare legislation enacted to provide for better protection of the interest of the consumers and different redressal forums have been established under the said Act for settlement of consumer disputes. The legislature having enacted such a legislation for speedy solution of the disputes of the consumers for the benefit of the people at large, we owe it to the people to allow these forums to function as far as possible without avoidable interdiction on our part. Ms. Supama Mukherjee, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3, has drawn our attention to a Division Bench decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Tulasi Enterprises vs. Andhra Pradesh State Commission ( AIR 1991 AP 326 ) which clearly supports the view that we are taking. 3. MR. Chatterjee, learned counsel for the appellant has, however, relied on a Single Judge decision of this Court in Calcutta Metropolitan Development authority vs. Union of India (1993 - 2 Consumer Protection Reporter 177) and has urged that the Writ Court is entitled to entertain the writ petition and to determine the question of jurisdiction of the concerned authority. We have never said that the Writ Court cannot, and all that we have said is that the Writ Court should not in view of the facts and circumstances of the case When the Legislature has constituted a hierarchy of tribunals with provisions for appeal to the Supreme Court. the high court should not interfere with the proceedings of such Tribunal except for compelling reason as where clear absence of jurisdiction is obviously apparent on the fact of the record on the admitted facts and without any dispute. To borrow from Shakespeare, the writ Court may have giant's power, but should not use it as a giant, As will appear hereinafter, the determination of the question of the jurisdiction would involve a number of questions of fact with can be more adequately and effectively decided by the State Commission on evidence. 4. IT appears that a recent Division Bench of the Kerala High Court has also in S. V. Georgekutly vs. State of Kerala (AIR 1994 Kerala 19) has accepted the view of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Tulasi Enterprises (Supra) and has dissented from the Calcutta Single Judge decision in calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority (Supra. 4. IT appears that a recent Division Bench of the Kerala High Court has also in S. V. Georgekutly vs. State of Kerala (AIR 1994 Kerala 19) has accepted the view of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Tulasi Enterprises (Supra) and has dissented from the Calcutta Single Judge decision in calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority (Supra. As already stated, we need not dissent from the Calcutta view either in order to take the view that we are taking here which appears to be in accord with the views of the andhra Pradesh High Court and the Kerala High Court. The respondent No. 3 has filed the complaint before the state Commission against the appellant and another alleging some dispute in respect of a deal of a Maruti Ambulance Van. It is alleged in the complaint that the appellant has adopted an unfair trade practice against the respondent No. 3 in respect of the deal. Under Section 2 (c) (i) of the Act, such a complaint can lie against the trader. The term "trader" has been defined in Section 2 (q) of the Act to mean a person "who" sells or distributes any goods for sale" and to include the manufacturer thereof and also the packer where such goods are sold or distributed in package form. It is not the case of the respondent No. 3 that the appellant is the 'manufacturer' or 'packer' in respect of the goods in question. A complaint under the Act, therefore, would accordingly lie against the appellant only if the appellant is the seller or distributor of the Maruti Ambulance Van in question. The State commission must decide this question before proceeding further against the appellant. 5. FROM the Power of Attorney excused by the respondent No. 3 in favour of the appellant, it appears that the respondent No. 3 has been allotted a Maruti Vehicle by M/s, Maruti Udyog Ltd. and the said Maruti vehicle was to be delivered to the respondent No. 3 by the said Maruti udyog Ltd. through their authorized dealer M/s. Swani Motors Pvt. Ltd. and that the respondent No. 3 being unable to take delivery of the said maruti vehicle from M/s. Swami Motors Pvt. Ltd. has appointed the appellant as a "true and lawful Attorney" "to take delivery of the said maruti vehicle from the said M/s. Swani Motors Pvt. Ltd. who are authorized dealers of messrs. Maruti Udyog Ltd. " We are afraid that if the appellant was only such an attorney, the appellant was neither a seller nor distributor against whom the complaint under the Act could he. The State commission would have decided the question on evidence. 6. THEN again, under Section 2 (b) of the Act, the respondent No. 3, not being a voluntary consumer association or the Central Government or any slate Government, must be a 'consumer' as defined in Section 2 (d) of the act to order to entitle to maintain this complaint. The Act having been enacted for the protection of the interests of the consumers only, a person is not entitled to invoke the provisions of the Act, unless he is a consumer as defined in the Act. Under section 2 (d) of the Act, a buyer of any goods ceases to be a consumer when "he obtain such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose". A person who purchases goods for reselling them or to enter into some commercial activity in respect of or with the aid of such goods ceases to be a consumer for the purpose of the Act and will have to stand outside its provisions. Under the explanation to Section 2 (d) of the act, "commercial purpose", however, does not include exclusive user for the purpose of earning livelihood by means of self-employment. Even if the respondent No. 3 intend to use the Maruti Ambulance Van in her business of running the Nursing Home, she would not be deemed to be using the same for "commercial purpose" if she is doing so for the purpose of earning livelihood by means of self-employment. This is again a question which the state Commission will have to decide before proceeding further with the complaint. Under section 2 (d) (ii), the respondent No. 3 would nevertheless be a consumer if she was availing the services of the appellant for some consideration, even if the appellant was employed as an attorney or agent to arrange for taking the delivery of the Maruti Ambulance Van; a point again to be decided by the State Commission before proceeding further with the complaint. 7. THE various Forums constituted under the Act are obviously more suited to decide, these disputed questions of fact than the Writ Court. 7. THE various Forums constituted under the Act are obviously more suited to decide, these disputed questions of fact than the Writ Court. We would accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the judgment under appeal including all the interlocutory orders passed and processes issued by the learned trial Judge and the writ petition shall stand dismissed. And we direct the State Commission to proceed with the determination of the complaint in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made herein. We would, however, make it clear that any observation made by us herein as to the question of fact shall not be treated by the State commission as any expression of our opinion on such question and the state Commission shall proceed to determine the dispute being completely uninfluenced by any such observation the appeal accordingly succeeds. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.