ORDER (Per : C.C. Pant, Member) This appeal is directed against the order dated 08.06.2006 passed by the District Forum, Nainital in consumer complaint No. 177 of 2004. Vide the impugned order, the District Forum has dismissed the complaint. 2. In brief, the facts of the case are that the complainant Sh. Rajiv Kumar Agarwal had purchased a light commercial vehicle Tata 207 from M/s. Mega Motors, Haldwani, District Nainital for sum of Rs. 3,95,852/- on 03.11.2003. The vehicle was purchased under hire purchase scheme of Tata Motors. The complainant has alleged that after plying the vehicle for about 9000 kms, the tyres got worn out and the chassis and cabin started getting damaged. The problem was brought to the notice of the opposite parties. However, a written complaint was made on 02.07.2004. When no action was taken by the opposite parties, he served a notice dated 30.07.2004 through his counsel on the opposite parties. In reply to the said notice, opposite party No. 4 vide its letter dated 02.08.2004, assured to take action on the complaint. When the complainant did not hear anything from the opposite parties for almost one had a half month, he again sent a notice on 14.09.2004. The complainant has further alleged that though a reply to this notice was given by opposite party no. 1, but the reply contained such facts, which were not true. For example, the letter states that the Works Manger had visited the complainant’s house on 06.08.2004 and had met his father. According to the complainant, his father had died long ago on 15.04.1981. In contrary, the complainant has stated that whenever the vehicle was sent to dealer’s workshop, it did not take interest in repairing the vehicle and always avoided to repair it on the pretext of either the absence of the mechanic or non-availability of spare parts. A final notice was sent on 03.10.2004. When no action was taken by the opposite parties, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Nainital, which was dismissed by the District Forum vide its order dated 08.06.2006. Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant has filed this appeal. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record in the light of the legal aspects of the case. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant has filed this appeal. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record in the light of the legal aspects of the case. 4. The learned counsel for the complainant – appellant reiterated the facts of the case and submitted that the complainant is a physically handicapped person suffering from 85% hearing disability. As such, he had engaged a driver for driving the vehicle. Such a person, who was earning his livelihood from the vehicle, is also a consumer. The District Forum has wrongly held that the vehicle was being used for commercial purpose and solely on this ground, the District Forum has erred in dismissing the complaint. The learned counsel also submitted that the complainant could not ply the said vehicle because the opposite parties failed to rectify the defects and, as such, he became a defaulter in paying the instalments of the vehicle. As a result thereof, the Finance Officer (Loan and Purchase) of Tata Motors took away the vehicle forcefully on 16.09.2004. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 mainly contended that the complainant had purchased the vehicle for commercial use. The vehicle was being driven by a hired driver and, as such, the complainant was not a consumer. He further submitted that the respondent No. 1 had never made any deficiency in service. Whenever the vehicle was brought to its workshop, the vehicle was serviced/repaired to the full satisfaction of the complainant. He pointed out to the job card (Paper No. 27) and said that it was the complainant, who was negligent in getting his vehicle serviced as per prescribed norms of the company and had defaulted not once but twice. If there was a crack in chassis or vehicle’s cabin had damaged, it also shows that the vehicle was not being maintained properly. Though a default in getting the vehicle serviced at 15,000 kms and 20,000 kms is a breach of warranty condition, even then the respondent No. 1 had entertained future services and repairs of the vehicle under the warranty condition, keeping in view its own and company’s goodwill. 6. The learned counsel for respondent Nos. Though a default in getting the vehicle serviced at 15,000 kms and 20,000 kms is a breach of warranty condition, even then the respondent No. 1 had entertained future services and repairs of the vehicle under the warranty condition, keeping in view its own and company’s goodwill. 6. The learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 4 submitted the same points and said that the vehicle has been taken away by the Financier, who had a legal right to do so under the agreement executed between the complainant and the financier. 7. We considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. We are not in agreement with the District Forum’s view that the complainant is not a consumer. While considering whether the vehicle was purchased for earning one’s livelihood, it should not be made a thumb rule that it should be driven by the purchaser himself. If the purchaser is physically handicapped, as in the instant case and can not be given a valid driving licence, then he will certainly either engaged a driver or will ply the vehicle with the help of his family member/relative, having a valid driving licence. So, merely on this ground, the complaint should not have been dismissed. However, we find that the vehicle has been purchased on hire purchase basis. In such a case, the complainant is a deemed owner of the vehicle so long as the instalments have been paid and are being paid. As soon as, he stops paying instalments, he ceases his right of ownership and the financier has a right to take away the vehicle. In the present case, when the complaint was filed, the complainant had lost his right of ownership of the vehicle and, as such, his complaint under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 can not be entertained. 8. Further, the complainant has alleged that the vehicle had started giving trouble after running about 9000 kms. The vehicle was taken for servicing at 10,000 kms. But there appears no such problem at that stage. The complainant did not get the vehicle serviced at 15,000 kms and 20,000 kms. Which also shows that the vehicle was plying satisfactorily. Even at 25,000 kms. And 30,000 kms. The complainant could have brought the problem to the notice of the respondent No. 1 because the vehicle was serviced at these two stages also. The complainant did not get the vehicle serviced at 15,000 kms and 20,000 kms. Which also shows that the vehicle was plying satisfactorily. Even at 25,000 kms. And 30,000 kms. The complainant could have brought the problem to the notice of the respondent No. 1 because the vehicle was serviced at these two stages also. Therefore, we are not convinced that the complaint in respect of a manufacturing defect in the vehicle, is a genuine one. There is no expert report in this regard as well. The affidavits of some other owners of the vehicle Tata 207, as submitted by the complainant, are not sufficient to prove that this vehicle Tata 207 suffers from manufacturing defects and the manufacturer/dealer has been negligent in providing satisfactory service to the complainant. The fate of the other vehicles, whether their cases are pending or have been decided and its result, has not been given. As such, this appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 9. Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.