JUDGMENT - V. BALAKRISHNA ERADI, PRESIDENT:---The revision petitioner herein was the complainant in C.D.C. No. 79/94 on the file of the District Forum, Chittoor. The grievance put forward in the said complaint was that for the purpose of opening a Xerox Centre at Tirupathi, the complainant purchased a Xerox machine from the first opposite party at a cost of Rs. 1,36,684/- but even since the date of the said purchase the machine had not been working properly and was defective in several respects as - many as five defects being enumerated in the complaint. The District Forum after hearing the complainant and the opposite parties and considering the material produced by them allowed the complaint by its letter dated 1st October, 1994 and directed Opposite Party to replace the xerox machine or in the alternative to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00 lakh to the complainant with interest at 12% from 1-10-1993 till the date of realisation. There was also direction made by the District Forum that the Complainant should return the Xerox machine to the second respondent on payment of the said amount. 2.The respondents herein carried the matter in appeal to the State Commission, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad and the main contention advanced by them in the appeal was that since the complainant had purchased the Xerox machine for being used in the "Xerox Centre" which she wanted to establish, it must be regarded as a purchase made for commercial purpose and hence the complainant could not be regarded as a consumer entitled to maintain the proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act. No oral evidence has been adduced by either side. On behalf of the complainant Exhibit A-1 to A-11 had been marked and no counter documentary evidence was produced by the respondents. Notwithstanding the fact that the evidence was thus one sided the State Commission took the view that the onus was entirely on the complainant to establish that the Xerox machine was purchased by her not for a commercial purpose but to eke out her livelihood and that she alone was using the machine. On this reasoning the State Commission held that the complainant had failed to discharge the aforesaid onus and hence the complainant cannot be regarded as a consumer entitled to maintain the complaint. On this reasoning the State Commission held that the complainant had failed to discharge the aforesaid onus and hence the complainant cannot be regarded as a consumer entitled to maintain the complaint. In the light of the said finding reached by it on the preliminary question as to the maintainability of the complaint, the State Commission did not go into the merits of the complaint petition or the findings recorded by the District Forum and allowed the appeal filed by the respondents herein with a consequential direction that the complaint shall stand dismissed. It is against the said order passed by the State Commission that this revision petition has been preferred by the complainant. 3.At the outset, we consider it necessary to observe that when an issue is raised as to whether or not a transaction of purchase made by a person was for a commercial purpose the burden of proof is not a static one and if it is prima facie established by the complainant that she had borrowed money from a financial institution for the purpose of commencing a small business by way of self-employment, the burden shifts on to the opposite party to establish the contrary namely that it was not a case of purchase of Xerox machine for self-employment as contended by the complainant. This onus has to be discharged by adducing counter evidence relating to the financial circumstances etc. of the complainant, the nature and volume of the business proposed to be transacted by the complainant as may be adjudged by proof of the number of photostat machines and other equipments that have been purchased or indented for the said business etc. As already mentioned, no documentary or oral evidence whatever has been adduced by the opposite parties before the District Forum and the only material available for the District Forum consisted of the affidavit of the Complainant and A-1 to A-11 produced by her. In the memorandum of revision filed before us which is supported by a sworn affidavit the complainant has stated that she is an unemployed young woman belonging to a Schedule Caste Community and that she had placed an order only for a single Xerox machine for starting a Xerox Centre for earning her livelihood with the aid of the said machine. It is submitted before us by the Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner that the complainant had tendered before the State Commission certain documents to further corroborate her case that it was a purchase made for starting a small venture by way of self employment after obtaining finance under the 'Mahila Udyama Nidhi' Scheme but the State Commission refused to entertain those documents and take them on file since they had been presented at a belated stage. 4.In our opinion, inasmuch as the State Commission has decided the question as to whether the complainant is a consumer only on the ground that the burden of proof lies on the complainant and it had not been satisfactorily discharged, the matter has to be remanded back to the State Commission for conducting an investigation into the question as to whether on the basis of the materials produced in the case, the case of the complainant that the purchase of the Xerox machine was effected by her for the purpose of making use of the machine for earning her livelihood by way of self-employment is made out or not. The case is, therefore, remanded to the State Commission for de novo determination of the aforesaid question after affording an opportunity to both sides to place all their contentions before it. We direct that the complainant will be at liberty to place any additional documents that she wishes to place in evidence before the State Commission. The respondents shall also be at liberty to adduce any counter documentary evidence before the State Commission. 5.The impugned order of the State Commission is accordingly set aside and the appeal is remanded to the State Commission for fresh disposal in the light what has been stated above. The parties shall appear before the State Commission, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad on the 12th of May, 1997 to take orders from it as to the date on which it will find it convenient to have the appeal posted for fresh hearing pursuant to this order of remand. The Revision Petition is disposed of as above. No costs. Appeal remanded back.