Admittedly, it was not the case of the complainants that the complainants had entered into the said agreements or for that matter purchased the said simcard and datacard facilities for the purpose of earning the livelihood by means of self employment of either complainant No. 1 or complainant No. 2, as contemplated by the explanation to Section 2(1)(d) of the C.P. Act, 1986. Obviously, the complainant No. 2 is a Company as such could bot be self employed as it does its buisness for the benefit of its shareholders. Complainant No. 1 had gone abroad on buisness of complainant No. 2. The products were purchased or the services of Respondent/OP were availed by the Company, complainant No. 2, so that complainant No. 1 could take decisions and provide guidance to the employees of the said Company in conduct of the buisness of the Company. Therefore, in our view, the Lr. District Forum was right in concluding that the complainant/s were not consumers so as to invoke the jurisdiction of the Lr. District Forum, relying on the said decision in the case of M/s. Alfran Constructions Pvt. Ltd(supra) which decision was rendered by relying on Cholamandalam D.B.S. Finance Ltd., I 2011 CPJ 225, wherein it was held that unless the goods were purchased or services were availed by a person exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self employment, such purchases or availment of service will be for commercial purpose. The same view is now reiterated in Saurabh Gupta, Dy. Manager(sales) Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd.,2014(2) CPR 133.

Appeal dismissed.