PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/complainant against the order dated 26.03.2013 passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (in short, he State Commission in Appeal No. 131/2008 Balbir Singh Vs. Chief Administrator, Punjab Urban Dev. Authority & Anr. by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum dismissing complaint was upheld. 2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner vide application no. 235 applied for allotment of commercial booth in Sector-71, SAS Nagar, Mohali. As there was also provision to submit the application under Tatkaal scheme, complainant submitted application under Tatkaal scheme. On the day of draw, complainant was allowed to exercise option in Sector 70 and complainant was asked to visit the vacant booth sites in Sector 70, but no site plan was made available to the complainant before, or at the time of allotment. Complainant visited site and selected site no. 10, which was between site nos. 9 & 11, where the booths were already constructed. Complainant selected site no. 10 and intimated to the OP/respondent and letter of intent for commercial booth no. 10 in Sector 70 was issued by OP to complainant on 29.10.2002. Complainant deposited money from time to time. After allotment of booth, complainant came to know that another site of booth no. 10A was created by OP adjacent to booth no. 10 allotted to the complainant. Booth no. 10A has already been constructed by the allottee resulting into considerable decrease in front of booth no. 10. Inspite of protests from the complainant, his grievances were not remedied and in such circumstances, complainant started construction. OP levied compounding fee. As booth was not suitable to the complainant, he abandoned construction. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint for refund of extra amount charged from him along with interest with a prayer to allot alternative booth at appropriate site. OP resisted complaint and submitted that complaint was not maintainable, as complainant was not a consumer and further submitted that complaint was barred by limitation. It was further submitted that booth was allotted to the complainant as per his choice and he deposited amount after inspecting the site and booth no. 10A already existed before allotment of booth no. 10 to the complainant and as such, there was no deficiency and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties dismissed complaint against which, appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed. 3. Heard the petitioner in person at admission stage and perused record. 4. Petitioner submitted that he was consumer within the purview of C.P. Act and complaint was filed within limitation. Even after proving the deficiency, the learned District Forum committed error in dismissing complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal; hence, revision petition be admitted. 5. Perusal of record clearly reveals that commercial booth was allotted to the petitioner meaning thereby booth was allotted for commercial purpose. Petitioner has nowhere stated in the complaint that booth was taken by him for earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. In such circumstances, complainant does not fall within the purview of consumer under the C.P. Act and complaint was not maintainable before District Forum. 6. Admittedly, booth was allotted on 29.10.2002 and last payment was deposited on 18.7.2003, whereas complaint was filed on 14.5.2007 without any application under Section 24-A of the C.P. Act, which was patently time barred and in such circumstances, District Forum and State Commission in the light of judgment of Honle Apex Court in the case of JT 2009 (4) SCC State Bank of India Vs. M/s. B.S. Agricultural Industries and IV (2010) 191 (SC) V.N. Shrikhande (Dr.) Vs. Anita Sena Fernandes has not committed any error in dismissing complaint being barred by limitation. 7. We do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and revision petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs.