PER SURESH CHANDRA, MEMBER The complainants/petitioners in this case are partners of a firm called M/s J.R. Industries. Vide application no.63314, a copy of which is placed on record, they applied to the OP/respondent for allotment of an industrial shed in the Industrial Estate at IMT Manesar. Vide its letter dated 13.12.2004, the respondent informed them that plot no.51 measuring about 450 square meters had been allotted to them for a tentative price of Rs.11,25,000/- subject to conditions regarding schedule of payment of balance amount etc. The petitioners accordingly initiated further action in terms of the allotment letter. However, instead of handing over the possession of the plot in question, the respondent issued a letter dated 23.03.2006 wherein the allotment of the plot to the petitioners was cancelled and they were advised to accept the refund of their money vide cheque for Rs.2,81,250/- dated 20.02.2006. 2. Aggrieved by this action on the part of the respondent, the petitioners filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula (istrict Forum for short) praying for direction to the respondent to withdraw this letter dated 23.03.2006 and to restore the allotted plot no.51, Sector-8, Manesar to the petitioners or to allot any other plot to them and also to pay Rs.12 Lacs as damages. 3. On appraisal of the evidence adduced and the documents placed before it, the District Forum accepted the complaint vide its order dated 30.10.2007 in terms of the following order:- n the result, the instant complaint is hereby allowed and the OP is hereby directed:- a) To restore plot no.51, Sector-8, Manesar to the complainant and if any amount has been refunded to the complainant, then the same will be returned within 15 days from receipt of this order, and b) Also pay a lump sum compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant for mental agony, harassment, loss and costs of proceedings. 4. The respondent challenged the aforesaid order of the District Forum by filing an appeal against it before the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (tate Commission for short) which allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum and dismissed the complaint of the petitioners vide its impugned order dated 20.07.2011. This impugned order is now under challenge through the present revision petition. 5. We have heard Mr. Harpreet Singh Bawa, counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. 6. It is to be noted that referring to the order of this Commission in the case of Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Ltd. versus Disksha Enterprises, (2010) Vol.III, CPJ 335, the State Commission held that since the plot in question was allotted to the petitioners for setting up an industrial unit, i.e. auto parts dyes which were meant for commercial purpose to earn profit and generate employment, the petitioners cannot be termed as onsumersand hence their complaint was not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act. The State Commission, however, held that in terms of the judgment of the Honle Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works versus PSG Industries Institute (1995) 3 SCC 583, the petitioners may seek exemption/condonation of the time spent before the Consumer Fora while seeking remedy before the Civil Court, if so advised. 7. The short question, which has arisen for our consideration is as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners can be held to be consumers. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the said two petitioners are the only partners in the applicant firm, which is unregistered firm and the main reason for their applying for the plot in question was the need to shift their small unit from residential area to industrial area since they had been facing lot of problems in running their unit in the residential locality. He further contended that the State Commission gravely erred in equating the facts and circumstances of the present case with those of the case of Disksha Enterprises (Supra) while reversing the order of the District Forum and accepting the appeal of the respondent because the plot in question is a small plot measuring 15X30 meters which comes to only 450 square meters in area whereas the industrial plot in the case of the Disksha Enterprises was a huge plot of 4000 square meters for the purpose of establishing a factory for manufacturing S.O.Dyes. In this context, learned counsel for the petitioners has further drawn our attention to the affidavit filed by the petitioners in which it is stated that the petitioners cannot afford a bigger plot and hence they applied for the smallest plot available and further stated that the shed is meant only for the purpose of earning their livelihood and they also undertook that they would not use the same for any other purpose then to earn their livelihood. In view of these peculiar facts of this case, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case of petitioners is fully covered by the definition of the consumer and hence, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of law and is liable to be set aside. 8. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel carefully. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the State Commission has already taken into consideration the relevant aspects before dismissing the complaint as not maintainable. We do not find any infirmity or irregularity in the impugned order. Contents of the application submitted by the petitioners for allotment of the industrial shed in question fully support the view taken by the State Commission. While the size of the plot may be 450 square meters, it does not necessarily mean that it is not big enough to accommodate commercial activity. Compared to the present size of the work place of the petitioners which is only 25 square yards in a residential locality, the proposed plot is to be used for setting up a unit for manufacturing of auto parts, electrical auto parts, dyes etc. This is mentioned by the petitioners themselves in their application and there cannot be dispute about it. With this kind of proposed activity on the 450 square meters plot, can it be assumed by any stretch of imagination that the intention of the petitioners is to earn livelihood by self employment? The answer obviously is in the negative. Besides this, it is seen from the application that the petitioners have deposited Rs.99,000/- along with their application and the same amount is equal to 10% of the price of the plot. Keeping in view the total price of the plot, nature of proposed manufacturing activity and the investment required in the project as mentioned in the application of the petitioners, we have no manner doubt that the plot in question allotted to the petitioners was for commercial purpose involving manufacturing activity, generation of employment and earning of profits. The petitioners therefore, cannot be regarded as onsumers. The case, therefore, is fully covered by the order of this Commission in the case of Disksha Enterprises (Supra). The District Forum did not consider the factual position on record and hence erred in accepting the complaint. We do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order and hence dismiss the revision petition at the threshold.