We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant. By filing this appeal which in fact appears to be Revision Petition, the petitioner is required to explain the delay of 60 days at the initial stage. The office report shows that the Revision Petition is filed on 14.9.2011 whereas the impugned order was rendered on 9.5.2011. The office report shows that 128 days were required in obtaining of the copy. Keeping aside the issue of limitation, it is amply clear that the State Commission rendered the order in F.A. No.3204 of 2002 on 9.5.2011 based upon the statement made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner to the fact that the electricity connection in question was installed at his Saw Mill premises which was being used by him for commercial purposes. The State Commission held, therefore, that the petitioner does not come within the ambit of definition of the expression onsumerin view of Section 2(i)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the complaint was not maintainable before the District Forum. The learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the concession given was not properly supported and it ought to have been considered in the given pleadings in the complaint. He would submit that running of the Saw Mill was only seasonal business and could not be termed as use of electricity for commercial purposes. He contended that there was no such objection raised in the District Forum and that mere tampering of the seals of the meter could not be sufficient to establish the allegations of the theft of electricity. At this stage, it may be noted that use of the electricity connection was admittedly for running of the Saw Mill whether it was the seasonal or a regular business is not the question of significance. Assuming that the petitioner was using the electricity connection for the purpose of earning his livelihood, yet, when the complaint was instituted on 2.1.1997, he could not come within the definition of Section 2(i)(d) because at the relevant time, there was no amendment to sub-clause (d) sub-section (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The amendment came into effect by Act of 62 of 2002 w.e.f. 15.3.2003. Obviously, the explanation appended to sub-clause (d) (ii) that the expression ommercial purposedoes not include use by a person of goods brought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment, will not govern the present case. That explanation becomes irrelevant because the amendment was not brought on Statute Book when the complaint was filed. The amendment is not retrospective. For these reasons, the complaint was not maintainable and as such without going into other reasons we deem it proper to dismiss the appeal.