This revision petition is directed against the order of Chhattirgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur (in short, “State Commission”) dated 20.12.2013 whereby State Commission disposed of the application filed under section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 preferred by the petitioner/complainant with following observations :- “After consideration, we find that processing and document charges has been debited by bank for sanction of first loan amount cannot be claimed because for such amount, cause of action has arisen on 14.3.2007 and the complaint had not been filed, within two years i.e., 14.3.2009. amount was debited by the bank for sanction of second loan can be claimed by the complainant because the bank had knowledge of disputed pendency at Company Law Board (CLB) and Bank denied to disburse the sanction amount as well as the NOC. Hence, the validity of second loan sanction letter cannot be ceased on 7.4.2010 (four months after the sanction of second loan). The bank had also asked clarification to the complainant and assured him to proceed further in proposal of review. Bank had not disbursed the loan amount, so cause of action arose again on 21.5.2011, complaint has been filed on 29.4.2013 i.e. in limitation. Hence, the application is partly allowed and the complainant is directed to delete the amount of processing and documents charges, which were debited regarding sanction of first loan mentioned in prayer clause.” 2. During the course of argument, on perusal of copy of the consumer complaint, prima facie, it appeared that the petitioner is not covered within the definition of consumer as envisaged under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Accordingly, we have asked the counsel for the petitioner to argue on the point of maintainability of the complaint itself. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken us to the definition of ‘service’ as defined in Section 2 (1) (O) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and contended that credit facility sought and availed by the petitioner from the respondents/opposite parties is covered under the definition of service and as the respondents were deficient in service, the petitioner can very well maintained the consumer complaint. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kishore Vs. Chairman, Employees State Insurance Corporation, MANU/SC/ 2148/2007 (AIR(2007)4 SCC 579 as also the judgments of coordinate Bench of this Commission in OP No.288 of 2002 titled Kaveri Telecom Ltd. Vs. Vijaya Bank & Anr. Decided on 21.8.2014 and in the matter of M/s RG2 WZ-83, Village Dasghara Vs. ATC (Clearing& Shipping) Pvt.Ltd. (OP No.170 of 2000) decided on 12.8.2014. 4. In order to appreciate the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, it is necessary to have a look on the definition of “Consumer” vis-à-vis the person availing any services. The relevant definition as provided in Section 2 (1) (d) (ii) is reproduced below :- (d) "Consumer" means any person who— (ii) hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who 'hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purposes; Explanation.— For the purposes of this clause, “commercial purpose” does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment; 5. On reading of above, it is clear in relation to the services availed, the “Consumer” is a person who hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid, partly paid or promised to be paid. However, this wide definition is restricted by the later part of the provision which provides “but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose”. 6. The term “commercial purpose’ has been defined in the explanation to the Section and it provides that for the purpose of the above definition of “commercial purpose” does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. This explanation obviously applies only to a natural person. The petitioner is a Private Ltd. Company, therefore, the terms “earning his livelihood by means of self-employment” are not applicable to the petitioner. 7. The case of the complainant as evident from the complaint is that complainant is an industrial company and it took loan from the respondent / bank for expanding its business. The cause of action for filing of the complaint is alleged deficiency in service on the part of the respondent / bank in respect of the aforesaid loan account. From this, it is obvious that the complainant availed of the services of the bank for commercial purpose. Therefore, in our view, the petitioner is not a ‘consumer’ as envisaged under section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. As such, it cannot maintain the consumer complaint. So far as judgments relied upon by the petitioner are concerned, it may be noted that prior to 15.03.2003 for the purpose of definition of consumer, there was no distinction between the person who avails services for commercial use or otherwise. However, by way of amendment incorporated vide Section 2, Act 62 of 2002, a person availing services for commercial purpose is excluded from the definition of consumer. The judgments relied upon by the petitioner pertains to the cases in which the services were availed by the complainants in those cases prior to the amendment, which came into force on 15.03.2003. Thus, those judgments are not applicable to the facts of the case. 8. In view of the discussion above, we are of the view that the petitioner not being a ‘consumer’ cannot legally maintain consumer complaint. As such we dismiss the revision petition and also dismissed the complaint filed before the State Commission. This order shall not come in the way of petitioner to avail the legal remedy available to him by approaching the appropriate forum. | 
