ORDER P.S. Rana (R) President - Present appeal is filed under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against order dated 18.11.2016 passed by Learned District Forum in consumer complaint No.36/2009 title Vinod Kumar vs. Case New Holland Construction Equipment (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Brief facts of consumer complaint: 2. Shri Vinod Kumar filed consumer complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 pleaded therein that on dated 30.12.2006 complainant purchased excavator (Earth Moving Machine) from opposite parties. It is pleaded that machine was delivered to complainant on 08.01.2007 and machine was registered before Registration Authority and complainant is registered owner of the machine. It is further pleaded that warranty of twelve months was also given to complainant. It is pleaded that on 27.08.2007 defect occurred in the engine and hydraulic system of the machine. It is further pleaded that complaint was lodged before opposite parties but opposite parties did not rectify the defect and committed deficiency in service. Complainant sought relief of payment of Rs. 130000/-(One lac thirty thousand) alongwith interest @ 12% per annum. In addition complainant sought compensation to the tune of Rs. 30000/-(Thirty thousand) as damages. It is pleaded that there was manufacturing defect in the excavator. Prayer for acceptance of consumer complaint sought. 3. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite parties pleaded therein that complaint is not maintainable. It is pleaded that excavator (Earth Moving Machine) was used for commercial activity and did not fall within domain of Consumer Protection Act 1986. It is further pleaded that no expert report was sought relating to manufacturing defect. It is further pleaded that excavator (Earth Moving Machine) was brought by complainant on 08.01.2007 and present complaint was filed after a lapse of 2 years on 30.03.2009. It is pleaded that on 27.08.2007 minor defect was occurred in the engine which was removed. It is further pleaded that opposite parties did not commit any deficiency in service. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint sought. 4. Learned District Forum on 07.07.2010 dispose of complaint and ordered opposite parties to refund a sum of Rs. 100000/-(One lac) to complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 30.03.2009 i.e. date of filing of complaint till realization. Learned District Forum further ordered that in addition opposite parties would pay a sum of Rs. 10000/-(Ten thousand) as damages to complainant for mental pain and suffering. 100000/-(One lac) to complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 30.03.2009 i.e. date of filing of complaint till realization. Learned District Forum further ordered that in addition opposite parties would pay a sum of Rs. 10000/-(Ten thousand) as damages to complainant for mental pain and suffering. Learned District Forum further ordered opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 1000/-(One thousand) to complainant as litigation costs. Feeling aggrieved against the order passed by learned District Forum opposite parties filed F.A. No.397/2010 before State Commission. State Commission disposed of said appeal on 27.07.2011. State Commission set aside the order of learned District Forum and remanded consumer complaint to learned District Forum with direction to dispose of consumer complaint afresh. Thereafter learned District Forum again dispose of consumer complaint on 18.11.2016 afresh and dismissed the consumer complaint. Feeling aggrieved against order passed by Learned District Forum complainant filed present appeal before State Commission. 5. We have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of parties and we have also perused entire record carefully. 6. Following points arise for determination in present appeal. 1. Whether appeal filed by appellant is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of appeal? 2. Final order. Findings upon point No.1 with reasons: 7. Complainant filed affidavit in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that deponent purchased excavator (Earth Moving Machine) from opposite parties on dated 30.12.2016. There is recital in affidavit that excavator (Earth Moving Machine) was delivered to deponent on 08.01.2007. There is further recital in affidavit that warranty card was issued by opposite parties. There is recital in affidavit that on 27.08.2007 defect occurred in engine and hydraulic system of machine and machine became non-operative. There is further recital in affidavit that matter was reported to opposite parties but opposite parties did not rectify the defect. There is recital in affidavit that opposite parties committed deficiency in service. There is further recital in affidavit that deponent has spent Rs. 130000/-(One lac thirty thousand) on account of repair and carriage of vehicle. We have perused all annexures filed by complainant carefully. 8. Opposite parties filed affidavit of Shri Sunil Sharma in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that defect was rectified immediately. There is further recital in affidavit that complainant has purchased another machine from opposite parties vide annexure-E1. We have perused all annexures filed by opposite parties carefully. 9. We have perused all annexures filed by complainant carefully. 8. Opposite parties filed affidavit of Shri Sunil Sharma in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that defect was rectified immediately. There is further recital in affidavit that complainant has purchased another machine from opposite parties vide annexure-E1. We have perused all annexures filed by opposite parties carefully. 9. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of complainant that there was manufacturing defect in the excavator (Earth Moving Machine) and on this ground appeal be allowed is decided accordingly. Complainant did not file affidavit of any mechanic or expert in order to prove that there was manufacturing defect in the excavator (Earth Moving Machine). It is well settled law that in order to prove manufacturing defect complainant is under legal obligation to place on record report of mechanic or report of expert. Hence plea of complainant that there was manufacturing defect in excavator (Earth Moving Machine) is defeated on the concept of ipse dixit (An assertion made without proof). See 2018 (1) CPR 307 NC Kanchanamani Devi (Dead) through LRs. vs. General Manager M/s. Tata Motors Limited & Ors. See 2018 (1) CPR 119 NC Pawan Kumar vs. Nissan Motors India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. See 2016 (4) CPR 412 NC M/s. Tractor Dealers Farm Equipment and Machinery Company vs. Ghan Shayam Maurya & other. 10. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of complainant that consumer complaint was filed within limitation before learned District Forum is decided accordingly. It is proved on record that complainant purchased excavator (Earth Moving Machine) from opposite parties on 30.12.2006 and possession of same was delivered to complainant on 08.01.2007. Complainant has pleaded that defect occurred in engine and hydraulic system of excavator on 27.08.2007. Complainant filed consumer complaint before learned District Forum initially on 30.03.2009. As per section 24-A of Consumer Protection Act 1986 consumer complaint could be filed within two years from the date on which cause of action was arisen. In the present matter cause of action arisen to complainant on 27.08.2007 and complainant filed original consumer complaint before learned District Forum on 30.03.2009 within two years after cause of action. Hence it is held that consumer complaint before learned District Forum was within limitation. 11. In the present matter cause of action arisen to complainant on 27.08.2007 and complainant filed original consumer complaint before learned District Forum on 30.03.2009 within two years after cause of action. Hence it is held that consumer complaint before learned District Forum was within limitation. 11. Submission of the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite parties that machine was used for commercial purpose and complainant be relegated to civil court is decided accordingly. Opposite parties have specifically pleaded in the version that excavator was plied by complainant for commercial purpose. Complainant did not file any rejoinder and complainant did not plead in complaint or affidavit that excavator was used by complainant for earning his livelihood by means of self employment. Pleading of opposite parties that excavator was used for commercial purpose remained unrebutted on record. Even in annexure-II dated 07.09.2007 and in annexure-III dated 11.09.2007 written by complainant to opposite parties complainant has mentioned his address as Transporter & Contractor for JCB compressor, Tractor, Trolly & Tipper, Building material, sand, concrete, bricks & contract carriage. Contractor is a person who has a contract to do work or provide goods and service for another. Generally contractor used to provide job to labourers in order to execute contractual obligations. In the present matter complainant did not plead and proof that he falls within explanation added in section 2(d) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 w.e.f. 15.03.2003. Complainant did not plead in complaint and affidavit that he had used excavator for purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self employment. Hence it is held that it is expedient in the ends of justice and on the principle of natural justice to relegate complainant to civil court in view of commercial activities of complainant. See 2018 (1) CPR 566 NC Shree Sharda Chains Pvt. Ltd. vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. In view of above stated facts point No.1 is decided accordingly. Point No.2: Final Order 12. In view of findings upon point No.1 above complainant is relegated to civil court for redressal of his grievances. Letters issued by complainant annexure-II & annexure-III dated 07.09.2007 & 11.09.2007 respectively wherein complainant himself has admitted that he is transporter & contractor would form part and parcel of order. Parties are left to bear their own litigation costs before State Commission. Letters issued by complainant annexure-II & annexure-III dated 07.09.2007 & 11.09.2007 respectively wherein complainant himself has admitted that he is transporter & contractor would form part and parcel of order. Parties are left to bear their own litigation costs before State Commission. File of learned District Forum alongwith certified copy of order be sent back forthwith and file of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion forthwith. Certified copy of order be transmitted to parties forthwith free of costs strictly as per rules. Appeal is disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.