Mount Litera Zee School alongwith its Chairman Aditya Verma has filed the instant consumer complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party contractor in the contracted work for the construction of the school building assigned to the opposite parties. 2. On bare reading of the complaint the question arises as to whether the complainants are consumers as envisaged under Section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and if not whether the complainants have locus standi to maintain the consumer complaint? Section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Act defines the term “Consumer” as under: - (d) "consumer" means any person who— (i) 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; 3. The allegation of the complainants is that they had hired/availed of services of the opposite parties for construction of the school building and the opposite parties were deficient in service because there were number of deficiencies in the construction work undertaken by the opposite parties. Thus, clause (ii) of Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act is relevant for our purpose. On bare reading of the aforesaid provision, it is clear that definition of consumer as given in Section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Act carves out an exception that the person hiring or availing of service for commercial purpose is not a consumer. 4. On reading of the complaint it is clear that as per the complainants, services of the opposite parties were hired and availed for construction of a school to be run by the complainants which is obviously a commercial purpose. Therefore, in my view the complainants cannot be termed as consumers. 5. Learned counsel for the complainants has contended that actually the complaint has been filed by trustee Mr. Aditya Varma on behalf of Sri Sai Educational Trust, which trust does not indulge in any commercial activity. Therefore, it cannot be said that the services of the opposite parties were availed by the complainants for running a school with commercial interest. 6. On careful consideration of record, I do not find merit in the contention of learned counsel for the complainants. No doubt in paras 1 & 2 of the complaint it is alleged that the complainant No. 2 is a trustee of public charitable trust, namely, Sri Sai Educational Trust registered under the Indian Trust Act and that the complaint has been signed and verified by the said trustee on behalf of the above noted trust. However, the fact remains that in the title of the complaint it is not clarified that the complaint has been filed by the trustee on behalf of the above noted trust. Even the complaint has been signed by Mr. Aditya Verma in his personal capacity as the Chairman of the complainant No.1 school without mentioning that he has signed the complaint as trustee of the above noted trust. The affidavit of complainant No.2 filed alongwith the complaint also does not give a clue that the complaint has been filed on behalf of the trust. It is pertinent to note that the complainants have not filed any resolution of the trustees authorizing Mr. Aditya Verma to file the present complaint. Therefore, I find it difficult to hold that the complaint has been filed by the trustees on behalf of Sri Sai Educational Trust. 7. Even if for the sake of arguments it is assumed that the instant complaint has been filed on behalf of the trust, then also it is difficult to conclude that the aforesaid trust is purely educational trust with no commercial ambition. On perusal of the trust deed it is clear that Sri Sai Educational Trust is not purely philanthropy trust which is obvious from some salient clauses of the trust deed as under: - “18 (Power of trustee) (a) To manage all the assets and/or properties of the trust including the conduct of business; 20 (Investment) (e) To sell, alter, vary, transpose or otherwise dispose or alienate the trust properties or any investment representing the same for consideration and to reinvest the same; (h) To enter into a partnership on behalf of the trust with any other party or parties; (a) All monies, which shall not immediately required for current needs shall be invested by the Trustees in eligible securities and investments as notified by government of India, or in scheduled banks. Such investments shall be in the name of trust. (b) that the trustees shall invest the trust fund, conduct business with the trust fund and/or enter into partnership on behalf of the trust, as they may deem fit as per objects of the trust. 8. On bare reading of the aforesaid clauses it is clear that the trust was created with a view to undertake various activities such as investment of trust money, conduct of business and for that purpose the trust was even authorized to enter into partnership with third party. Not only this, resolution clause 28 of the trust deed provides that in the event of dissolution or amalgamation or winding up of the trust, the assets of the trust shall be distributed amongst the trustees but shall not be transferred to some other similar trust/organization. From this it is obvious that the trustees had created this trust for personal gains which clearly indicates that object behind construction of the subject school was to undertake commercial activity. 9. In view of the discussion above, it is clear that the complainants have availed the services of the opposite parties for construction of a school building meant to be run for commercial purpose. Thus, in view of Section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Act the complainants are excluded from the definition of consumer. The complainants not being the consumers have no locus standi to raise a consumer dispute before the consumer Fora. Complaint is accordingly dismissed. It, however, shall not prevent the complainants from availing appropriate remedy by approaching appropriate Forum having jurisdiction. | 
