Instant consumer complaint has been filed by M/s Rajputana Broadband Services Pvt. Ltd. against the opposite party developer and its officials as also Noida authority alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party developer in respect of the builder buyer agreement between the complainant and the developer. On perusal of para-6 of the complaint it is obvious that the complainant company had booked the subject corporate suit in the development project undertaken by the opposite party for creating a source of income by way of letting out the sale. The term “Consumer” has been defined under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as under: - “(d) "consumer" means any person who— 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) hires 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 purposes;
Explanation.— For the purposes of this clause, “commercial purpose” does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment” On bare reading of the above it is clear that consumer is a person who buys goods or hires or avails of services for consideration but does not include a person who buys goods or hires or avails of services for commercial purpose. From the above-noted allegations in para-6 of the complaint it is evident that the complainant admittedly has availed of services of the opposite party developer for a commercial purpose i.e. earning rent by letting out the subject corporate suite No.1078 (A). Thus, in view of the exception carved out in the definition of consumer, the complainant cannot be termed as a consumer. Learned counsel for the complainant in order to wriggle out of the situation has referred to explanation given in Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act and submitted that the case of the complainant is covered under the explanation as the complainant intended to let out the subject premises to earn rent. The explanation, in my view is not of any avail to the complainant who is a private company. The explanation gives a restricted meaning to the term “commercial purpose” by providing that commercial purpose does not include use by a person of goods and services availed by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. The use of word “livelihood” by means of self-employment makes it clear that this explanation is available only to the natural person and not to the juristic person like companies. In view of the discussion above, as per his own saying the complainant is not a consumer as envisaged under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act. The complainant therefore has no locus standi to maintain a consumer complaint. Complaint is accordingly rejected. | 
