JUSTICE J.M. MALIK 1. The main question which falls for consideration, at the time of admission of this complaint, is hether the complainant, Ms.Shikha Birla, is a Consumer? In order to appreciate the above said question, it would be worthwhile to state the facts of this case. 2. The Complainant was interested to purchase a business place at The South Court, DLF, Saket, New Delhi. Initially, the property bearing No. BSP-DSC-BSP-DSC 141, measuring about 1195 sq.ft was allotted in favour of Mr.Ashiwani Bahl. He paid first to fourth instalments during the year 2005-06, in the sum of Rs.30,47,250/-, Rs.20,31,500/-, Rs.20,31,500/- and Rs.20,31,500/- respectively. On 07.03.2006, Mr.Ashiwani Bahl, entered in a retail/commercial space buyer agreement with the DLF Retailers Developers Ltd, the OP in this case. On 15.05.2006, Ms.Shikha Birla, the Complainant entered in an agreement of sale of the said property in question with Mr.Ashiwani Bahl and on the same very day, permission was also obtained from the OP to appoint the complainant as a nominee to be substituted in the place of Mr.Ashiwani Bahl. Rest of the instalments were paid by the Complainant. 3. The plot of the complainant was shown as shaped property and not a ectangular box On 11.04.2010, the OP reduced the area of the property of the complainant to 1494 sq.ft. The shaped plot was arbitrarily changed to a rectangular box. The initial area was 1195 sq.ft which was an shaped plot. The said area was not reduced, but increased. However, the shop on the plot was changed without the consent of the complainant. The OP company issued the possession letter without having the occupancy certificate. It also demanded maintenance charges. Consequently, this complaint was filed with the prayer that the OP should be directed to handover the possession of the said plot, as per the terms and conditions of the contract and compensation be granted. 4. The counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant is a onsumer He has cited the following three authorities in support of his case, (1) Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M.K. Gupta, (1994) 1 SCC 243 (2) Narne Construction Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2012) 5 SCC 359 and (3) Jagdishbhai M. Sneth @ Soni Vs. Surbhih Realtors India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (2012) NCDRC CPJ 525 (NC). 5. The above said authorities lay emphasis on the word ervices The question of complainant being a onsumer is a different one. In the instant case, the complainant is purchasing a shop. The word onsumer is defined in Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which is reproduced as under:- d) onsumer means any person, who :- (i) buys any goods 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 user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or (ii) ires 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 purpose [EMPHASIS SUPPLIED] 6. It is thus clear that the complainant is purchasing the said plot for commercial purpose. There is no pleading nor any evidence to show that the shop purchased by her is exclusively for the purpose of her livelihood, by means of self-employment. 7. It must be borne in mind that the complainant has already paid more than Rs.2.00 crores. The total cost of the shop is of about Rs.3.00 crores. The complainant is silent about her occupation. In her affidavit, in Para Nos. 3, 4, 5 & 6, for the first time, she mentions : . That the complainant had purchased the said commercial area being provided respondent for her end use with a view to open a showroom for interior designing in the said area. 4. The complainant is working as an Interior Designer in the firm which is owned by her father in law i.e. Mr. Malik Chand Birla and her husband i.e. Mr.Anurag Birla under the name and style of /s. Origin Overseas (Queen 10 the Home Affaire) 5. That with the view to provide a permanent place for the said boutique when the same was shut down in Hauz Khas, the complainant was forced to move to Gurgaon temporarily in the Grand Mall, GS-122, thereafter the complainant decided to purchase the instant area for her usage. 6. That the ITR of her as well as the firm where she is working is produced as under for the kind perusal of this Honle Commission. S.No. Year ITR of Complainant (In Rs.) ITR of Firm (In Rs.) 1. 2007-2008 22,93,658/- 0 2. 2008-2009 2,40,000/- 12,74,029/- (Loss) 3. 2009-2010 2,41,470/- 58,420/- 4. 2010-2011 3,80,724/- 0 5. 2011-2012 4,10,930/- 0 6. 2012-2013 5,67,723/- 55,813/- Copy of the ITR for the abovementioned years along with other documents are attached herewithin as Annexure P/8 8. In Monstera Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ardee Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, IV (2010) CPJ 209 (NC), there was delay in possession. Complainant was a private limited company. Complainant was nominated for allotment of showroom. Possession not given. Sale deed was not executed. Deficiency in service was alleged. Even if private limited company was treated as erson purchase of space could not be for earning its livelihood. Purchase of space was for commercial purpose. 9. Again, in Travel India Bureau Pvt. Ltd. Vs. HUDA, II (2008) CPJ 329 (NC), dwelling units were purchased but possession was not delivered. Purchase of dwelling units was not for earning livelihood by means of self-employment. Transaction was relatable to commercial purpose. It was excluded from definition of consumer. Complaint was not maintainable. 10. It is thus clear that the shop is being purchased for commercial purposes. The present complaint is not maintainable, therefore, the same is hereby dismissed. 11. However, the complainant is at liberty to seek redressal of her problem elsewhere, before the appropriate forum, as per law.