The above-named complainant, a proprietorship concern, has filed this complaint against the OP, HDFC Bank alleging deficiency in service on its part and claiming a compensation of Rs.12,86,00,000/- alongwith interest @18% p.a. with effect from 1.04.2009 till its realisation. 2. We have carefully perused the averments and allegations made in the complaint and have also heard learned counsel representing the complainant on the question of maintainability of the present complaint before this Commission or for that reason before a consumer Fora established under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Presently assuming that all the averments and allegations made by the complainant in the complaint are correct or that the complainant may one day be able to establish the same, still the question is as to whether the complainant falls within the purview of the definition of onsumeras defined under section 2(i)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short he Act as it stands after its amendment by the Amending Act 62 of 2002 effective from 15.03.2003. Prior to the amendment to the Act, it was permissible for a person including juristic person to approach this Commission for the redressal of their grievance arising out of deficiency in service committed by a service provider within the meaning of the Act. The amending Act has made a sea-change in the said definition and has taken away a person from the purview of the definition of onsumer who avails the services from a service provider for a commercial purpose. On a bare reading of the averments and allegations made in the complaint, we have no manner of doubt that the complainant has availed the services of the opposite party Bank for and in relation to its commercial purpose. The various transactions in regard to the non-sanction of cash and credit facility, term-loan, etc. alleged by the complainant are in relation to the business of the complainant which it was pursuing at the relevant time. 3. In view of the above discussion, we must hold that the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of onsumeras defined in section 2(i)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and complaint does not disclose a consumer dispute which the complainant is entitled to raise before a consumer Fora like the present Commission and seek its redressal. It appears to us that the complainant by approaching this Commission wants to misuse the jurisdiction of this Commission only with the object of saving on the court fee which is payable on a civil suit if the matter had been filed in a competent civil court. For the above-stated reasons, we dismiss the complaint as not maintainable before this Commission with cost of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited in the onsumer Legal Aid Accountof this Commission within two weeks from today. However liberty is granted to the complainant to work-out its remedy before the appropriate court, tribunal / forum in accordance with law.