PER SURESH CHANDRA, MEMBER

This revision petition challenges the order dated 10.02.2012 passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (tate Commissionfor short) passed in First Appeal No.304 of 2011 by which the State Commission allowed the appeal of the respondent against the order dated 11.05.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, New Delhi in CC/704/2010 filed by the petitioner. The District Forum vide its order allowed the complaint of the petitioner and directed the respondent company to pay Rs.3480/- in cash to the complainant / petitioner or offer the products against the coupons along with Rs.1000/- as compensation for harassment and litigation expenses. 2. Briefly stated, the facts emanating from the record filed by the petitioner are that the petitioner who is a shareholder of the respondent company, namely, Nestle India Ltd., went to attend the Annual General Meeting of the shareholders held on 21.4.2010. The respondent Co. offered refreshment coupons for chocolate pack to its shareholders at this meeting. According to the petitioner, some of the shareholders could not exchange their coupons against the chocolate pack because the stock of chocolate packs got exhausted due to huge gathering of the shareholders at the AGM. In view of this, such shareholders were asked to collect their chocolate packs from company office at Connaught Place. 3. Petitioner was one of those who could not collect the chocolate pack since the refreshment had exhausted. Feeling harassed by the response from the representatives of the respondent Co. who made him run from one office of the Co. to another to collect the chocolate pack, the petitioner filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent Co. The District Forum vide its aforesaid order, accepted the complaint against which the respondent Co. went in appeal before the State Commission which reversed the order of the District Forum by accepting the appeal and setting aside the order of the District Forum. 4. We have heard Mr. S.N. Gupta who is father of the petitioner and appeared before us on her behalf and Mr. Ravinder Narain, Sr. Advocate assisted by Ms. Kanika Gomber for the respondent Co. Admittedly, the petitioner in this case is one of the shareholders of the Co. and she had attended the AGM of the Co. in her capacity as the owner of the Co. to the extent of her shareholding. Keeping this important aspect in view, the State Commission held that the petitioner is not a consumer qua the incident in question while attending the AGM of the shareholders. While allowing the appeal of the respondent Co. and setting aside the order of the District Forum, the State Commission has recorded the following reasons in support of the impugned order:- . It is evident that payment of consideration in part or full or promise thereof is the basic ingredient of being a consumer. In fact a shareholder is a owner of the company to the extent of value of his/her shares and he/she attends the Company Annual General Meeting to facilitate its management to address concerns of the shareholders. The company facilitates such meetings by offering lunch packs/snacks etc. for no payment by the shareholders. Therefore, in the instant case no payment has been made by the shareholder that obligates the company to provide lunch/gift packs. Hence there is absence of the main ingredient of definition of the world onsumeras per the Consumer protection Act. 10. That the above conclusion is in conformity as held by Honle national Commission in Dr. Goutam Das vs Sun Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and another. The Honle national Commission was pleased to observed as under:- n our view, complainant, a shareholder cannot be the consumer Sun Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Opposite party No.1 within the meaning of section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the present complaint, is therefore, not legally maintainable under that Act 5. We agree with the view taken by the State Commission. The District Forum gravely erred in treating the petitioner as a consumer while accepting the complaint in question and non-suiting the defence of the respondent Co. in this regard. In these circumstances, we do not find any illegality or material irregularity which would call for our interference. The revision petition, therefore, stands dismissed. No costs.