JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER 1. In this case, it is averred that the complainant, Shri Saurabh Agarwal, is a young entrepreneur having graduated in Commerce from University of Delhi and obtained M.B.A. degree from World renowned institution. He has worked in various countries, acquired valuable experience of working in MNCs and in various countries environments. 2. Opposite Party/Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (HSIIDC), floated a scheme for allotment of industrial plots in the Industrial Estate of Kundli. The complainant applied for a plot of 1012.50 sq. mtr.,along-with two separate demand drafts of Rs.5,56,875/-, being 10% of the total price and Rs.75,000/- being the processing fee, in February, 2010. 3. The opposite party failed to meet the deadline of one year. However, the opposite party wrote a letter dated 27.04.2012 calling the complainant/applicant for interview and fulfil a long list of formalities vide annexure P-3. The complainant fulfilled all the formalities and wrote a letter dated 16.6.2012 in compliance, its copy is annexure P-4. 4. After more than two years, the OP wrote a letter to the complainant informing him that the rate of allotment stood revised from Rs.5500/- to Rs.10,000/- per sq. mtr. The complainant was also given an option either to take back the deposit amount with interest @ 8% per annum or else deposit a further sum of Rs.4,55,625/-, being 10% of the enhanced portion at the rate of 10% of Rs. 4500/-per sqr. mtr. The letter further mentioned that in case of refund taken in future, the interest would be paid @ 5.5. % p.a. The letter also cited the then extant policy, as the basis or reason behind the letter. 5. On 12.06.2015, the OP wrote a letter thereby conveying that the application of the complaint is rejected on the pretext of coming out with more transparent policy and procedure. In a unilateral and illegal move, the money deposited by the complainant-applicant was also returned with 8% interest p.a. Again, no reservation, priority, preference was given to the complainant-applicant. The complainant kept the track of website advised by the OP to know about new announcement and no commitment of informing individually despite the OP having full contract particulars and maintaining the details and record since 2010. After June, 2015, the applicant found no advertisement on checking of website. However, while searching internet for old news items relating to allotment of plot in IE Kundli, the complainant/applicant stumbled upon a news item that the opposite party announced some scheme in November, 2015. On checking the website, no advertisement was found. 6. Ultimately, this complaint was filed in this Commission on 8.4.2016 with the following prayers: “(i)Quash and declare null and void the rejection of application and candidature of the complainant-applicant for allotment of an industrial plot in the industrial Estate of Kundli vide letter No. HSIIDC:ESTATE:2015:KU:1012.50:1032:1741 dated 12.06.2015 (Annexure P7). (ii) Direct the OP to allot and handover an industrial plot measuring 1012.50 square meters alongwith the daqmages of Rs.400 crores or alternatively award exemplary compensation amounting to a sum of rs.4.5. crores payable by OP as claimed in para 18 (d) above. (iii) Award punitive damages against OP 2 amounting to such sum, as may be determined in view of loss or injury that might have been similarly suffered a large number of consumers/applicants who are identifiable conveniently, and as may be deemed just and appropriate as per Section 14(1) (hb) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. (iv) Award adequate cost to complainants. (v) Pass such further orders in favour of the complainants and against the opposite party the HSIIDC, as may be deemed just and appropriate by honourable Commission in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. The complainant has also filed an affidavit in support of his case. The relevant extract from his affidavit runs as follows: “5. That as part of my various jobs in various MNCs I have worked in various countries including USA, UK, Netherlands, UAE, Singapore. 6.That I left good jobs and did not take up fresh jobs offered with annual CTS around Rs. 22 lakhs as I expected allotment of industrial plot as per my application as all formalities and requirements were completed and all necessary documents were submitted. 7. that I have been striving to set up my businhess and industry even since I left my lucrative jobs and still in need for an industrial plot to utilize my entrepreneurial spirits, skills and energies. 8. That I am not able to acquire any approved industrial space from other sources or open market in view of my limited financial resources and I could afford only the industrial plot offered by OP which is given with liberty to make payment in long term instalments.” 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant at the time of admission of this case. He contended that the complainant did not own any other business premises or industrial plot or space. It was also argued that the plot has not been purchased for commercial purpose or re-sale etc. It is contended that the complainant intends to set up his own suitable industry for earning his livelihood by self employment. 9. We are of the considered view that the complainant is not a consumer. Neither in the complaint nor in the affidavit, he has not mentioned, what is the purpose of acquiring this industrial plot. He has not specified which kind of business, he will do there. He has not yet made up his mind. If the plot is to be acquired for self employment, one must be aware of what kind of business, he will do in the industrial plot. Complaint and affidavit are conspicuously silent about it. He has not disclosed what he has done from 2010 to 2012, when did he leave the job, what was his further programme. A land measuring 1012.50 sq. mtr. is a huge land, which, one person, of his own, cannot control for self- employment. If he is to construct a factory there, a number of persons will be working in that industrial plot. The real facts were kept under the hat despite the opportunity to file the affidavit was granted to him. In a recent authority titled as Ganesh Chand Sharma vs. Regional Manager, U.P. State Industrial, revision petition No. 1206 of 2015 decided on 31.7.2015, it has been held in para 4. 4. On reading of the above, it is clear that subject to the exception carved out in the above definition a person is a “consumer”, who hires or avails of the services for consideration. The above essential element of the definition of consumer is missing in this case. Ongoing through the complaint, it cannot be disputed that the petitioner has availed of services of the respondents for a commercial purpose ie. Allotment of the industrial plot for setting up a factory. Thus, petitioner, in our view, is not a “consumer” as envisaged under definition reproduced above. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner had applied for industrial plot for setting up a factory exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. Thus, it is establish that the petitioner is not a “consumer” and, therefore, he has no locus standi to maintain the consumer complaint. Thus, the complaint has been rightly dismissed. SLP (Civil) No. 31049 of 2015 filed against this order was dismissed by the Apex Court on 20.11.2015. 10. The bizarre conduct of the complainant sitting ideal for a period of six years, not disclosing his occupation and purpose of acquiring the land, goes to weaken his case. 11. The complaint is, therefore, dismissed. Liberty is granted to the complainant to approach the appropriate forum, as per law. | 
