Inconsistency in the Designs Act: Real or Perceived?

I was just going through the definition of “design” in Section 2(d) of the Designs Act, 2000, which reads as follows:

d) “design” means only the features of shape, configuration, pattern, ornament or composition of lines or colours applied to any article whether in two dimensional or three dimensional or in both forms, by any industrial process or means, whether manual, mechanical or chemical, separate or combined, which in the finished article appeal to and are judged solely by the eye; but does not include any mode or principle of construction or anything which is in substance a mere mechanical device, and does not include any trade mark as defined in clause (v) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 or property mark as defined in section 479 of the Indian Penal Code or any artistic work as defined in clause (c) of section 2 of the Copyright Act, 1957

The Designs Act, 2000 excludes a trade mark as defined in clause (v) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, from the definition of “design”, but chooses not to exclude a trade mark as defined in section 2(1)(zb) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 although the definition of trade mark is not identical in the 1958 and 1999 Trade Marks Acts. Is there a reason for the omission? Does it mean that a trademark under the current trade mark law qualifies as a protectable design under the current Designs Act?