This revision is directed against the order of Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (short, tate Commission dated 5.12.2011 in FA No.09 of 2008 whereby the State Commission dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner (Service Provider) against the order of the District Forum, Jagadhri. 2. The brief facts relevant for the disposal of this revision petition are that respondent Shri Naresh Kumar purchased a plot from M/s Kanahiya Metal Works vide a registered sale deed dated 27.3.2002. Prior to the sale M/s Kanahiya Metal was running factory in the said plot. The factory had electricity connection. M/s Kanahiya Metal Works failed to pay the electricity charges amounting to Rs.5,33,837/-. The previous owner without clearing the electricity bill sold the property in question to the respondent. Naresh Kumar, who constructed the house there and applied for electricity connection. The respondent also deposited the requisite fee of Rs.510/-. The petitioner declined to grant electricity connection to the respondent till the previous arrears of electricity dues of previous owner were paid. This was done in terms of Sales Circular No.U-63 of 2007 dated 10.9.2007. Claiming refusal of the petitioner to give electricity connection as deficiency in service, respondent Naresh Kumar filed the consumer complaint before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jagadhri (short, District Forum). The claim was resisted by the petitioner/opposite party mainly on the ground that there was no privity of contract between the petitioner and respondent because the request for electricity connection was not granted. 3. District Forum on consideration of the pleadings and evidence produced by the parties, allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to release the electricity connection to the complainant. It also imposed Rs.1100/- as litigation expenses. 4. Being aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, petitioner preferred an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission did not find any merit in the appeal and dismissed the same. 5. At this stage we may note that no one has appeared for the respondent even on the second call. Therefore, instead of delaying the matter, revision petition is heard ex-parte against the respondent. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned orders of the foras below are without jurisdiction. Expanding on the argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has taken us through the definition of onsumeras provided in section 2 (d) (ii) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ( in short, he Act and submitted that undisputedly electricity connection was not released in favour of the respondent and as such there exists no relationship of the consumer and service provider between the parties. Learned counsel further contended that in view of the above, the consumer complaint could not have been maintained by the respondent. 7. We find merit in the above contention of the petitioner. Section 2 (d) (ii) of the Act defines the term onsumerin relation to service which is reproduced as under: ires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promsed, 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, ommercial purposedoes 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 8. On reading of the above, it is clear that consumer means a person who hires or avail of any service for consideration, present or deferred. Admittedly in this case, the application of the respondent for grant of electricity connection was declined by the petitioner. No service contract between the parties came into existence. As such the respondent cannot be termed as onsumer Section 2 (1) (b) of the Act defines the complainant as under: (b) "complainant" means (i) a consumer; or (ii) any voluntary consumer association registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (1of 1956)or under any other law for the time being in force; or (iii) the Central Government or any State Government, (iv) one or more consumers, where there are numerous consumrs having the same interest; (v) in case of death of a consumer, his legal heir or representative; who or which makes a complaint 9. In the present case, the respondent is not covered under the definition of complainant because he is neither a consumer nor he falls within any of the other categories of the complainant mentioned in the definition. As per section 2 (1) (c ) of the Act, a complaint can be maintained by the complainant. Since in this case the respondent is neither a consumer nor he falls within the definition of complainant, he could not have maintained the consumer complainant and the foras below have committed a grave jurisdictional error in entertaining the complaint. 10. In view of discussion above, we are of the opinion that impugned orders of the foras below are without jurisdiction. Accordingly, we allow the revision petition, set aside the impugned orders and dismiss the complaint.