JUDGMENT Prasenjit Mandal, J. 1. This application is at the instance of the opposite party/petitioner and is directed against the Order dated June 22, 2012 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Calcutta in SC Case No. RC/116/2011 thereby rejecting the revisional application filed by the petitioner. The opposite party no. 1 filed a complaint petition under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Burdwan being DF Case No. 229 of 2009 praying, inter alia, for a sum of Rs. 2,49,178/- as compensation and litigation costs. The opposite party no. 1 has contended that one, Ajoy Chowdhury, since deceased, purchased a Tata truck being the vehicle in question after obtaining financial assistance from the opposite party no. 3 herein in the year 2004. The said Ajoy Chowdhury died on April 1, 2004 leaving behind his wife and a son as surviving representatives. Thereafter, the heirs of late Ajoy Chowdhury executed a Power of Attorney dated May 24, 2005 in favour of the opposite party no. 1 (complainant) entrusting him to look after, pay and sell the vehicle and also to do all the things necessary, for and on their behalf. Thereafter, as per petition of complaint, the opposite party paid certain instalments, but, he failed to make payment of two instalments and for that reason, the opposite party no. 3 took possession of the vehicle in question by use of force. Thereafter, one Priya Nath Chatterjee claimed that he became the owner of the vehicle by purchase from the opposite party no. 3. Criminal proceedings were lodged over the matter. Ultimately, as per order of the Hon'ble Court permitting the opposite party no. 1 to take appropriate legal steps, he filed the present complaint being DF Case No. 229 of 2009 praying, inter alia, for a sum of Rs. 2,49,178/- as compensation and litigation costs. 2. The petitioner has contended that the said loan was assigned to them by the opposite party no. 3 and then after appearance before the Consumer Forum, it filed an application challenging the maintainability of the consumer proceeding and the said application was dismissed by the learned District Forum. Thereafter, a revision was filed before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum being SC Case No. RC/116/2011 and that revisional application was dismissed by the impugned order. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred. 3. Thereafter, a revision was filed before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum being SC Case No. RC/116/2011 and that revisional application was dismissed by the impugned order. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred. 3. Now, the question is whether the impugned order should be sustained. 4. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, I find that facts as recorded above are not in dispute. The only question that has come up is whether the opposite party no. 1 is competent to file a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. 5. In support of his contention of non-maintainability of the complaint before the said Forum, Mr. Mainak Bose has contended that as per complaint, the Hon'ble High Court by order dated December 3, 2008 in CRR No. 3815 of 2007 had given liberty to the complainant to agitate before an appropriate Forum regarding this claim so that necessary final order could be passed in accordance with law and thus, the complainant having been given liberty to file a complaint, this case has been lodged before the Forum. 6. Mr. Bose has also contended that the complainant has signed the verification stating, inter alia, that all the statements made in the complaint are true to his knowledge and believe and he signed the verification accordingly. 7. Thus, Mr. Bose has contended that since the complainant was not present at the time of granting the loan, such verification is not acceptable and as such, the District Forum as well as the State Commission were quite wrong in not entertaining the objection raised by the petitioner as to the maintainability of the said complaint case. 8. Mr. Siddhartha Banerjee, learned Advocate appearing for the opposite party no. 3, virtually, supports the contention of Mr. Bose. 9. In the instant case, I find from the materials on record that both the District Forum and the State Commission have held the concurrent view that a constituted attorney can become a complainant under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act and as such, the objection has been dismissed. 10. 3, virtually, supports the contention of Mr. Bose. 9. In the instant case, I find from the materials on record that both the District Forum and the State Commission have held the concurrent view that a constituted attorney can become a complainant under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act and as such, the objection has been dismissed. 10. It may be mentioned herein that the proceedings before the District Forum have not reached to the stage of taking evidence but at the preliminary stage after appearance of the petitioner and the objection to the complaint has been raised on the ground of competency of the opposite party no. 1 to lodge a complaint. 11. So far as the verification of the complaint is concerned, the question whether the verification has been done properly or not may be considered at the stage of disposal of the complaint case by taking evidence on behalf of both the parties. 12. Mr. Bose has contended that the complainant is not able to adduce evidence as he was not present at the time of grant of loan in favour of Ajoy Chowdhury, since deceased. I think these are the matters to be decided afterwards and the State Commission has clearly indicated how the matter is to be dealt with while dealing with a complaint by the Consumer Forum at the stage of recording evidence. 13. Mr. Bose has also contended that since the transaction was for commercial use and as such, the petition of complaint does not become a complaint as per definition of consumer laid down in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. 14. So far as the commercial transaction is concerned, the learned State Commission has given answer to that effect and if it is recorded, it will be nothing but a repetition of the same. 15. Mr. Bose has also contended that the heirs of the principal loanee have not made a party in the complaint and as such, the petition of complaint as made under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act is not maintainable. The complainant/opposite party no. 1 has no locus standi to file the complaint case at all. Such facts, I hold, could only be decided upon taking evidence on behalf of both the parties and it is not the appropriate Forum to decide such questions. 16. Prima facie, it appears that the complainant/opposite party no. The complainant/opposite party no. 1 has no locus standi to file the complaint case at all. Such facts, I hold, could only be decided upon taking evidence on behalf of both the parties and it is not the appropriate Forum to decide such questions. 16. Prima facie, it appears that the complainant/opposite party no. 1 lodged the said proceeding before the District Forum on the basis of a Power of Attorney. This has to be tested only at the time of recording evidence on behalf of both the parties. 17. Accordingly, I am of the view that the State Commission has rightly addressed the issue and that there is no scope of interference with the concurrent findings of the District Forum and the State Commission. 18. So, I am of the view that there is no scope of interference with the impugned order. 19. The application is, therefore, dismissed. 20. Considering the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned Advocates for the parties on their usual undertaking. Application dismissed