JUSTICE J.M. MALIK 1. Harish Kumar, runs a small shop under the name and style of astha Telecom He transacts the business of selling new mobile connections of various companies. He used to purchase unactivated connections of OPs 1 & 2, namely, Reliance Communications Private Ltd., Chandigarh, Reliance Communications Ltd., Patiala, respectively, from Mr. Mirnal Garg, Proprietor of AB Traders, Barnala, OP3, which were further sold to customers and thereafter activated from a demo set that was given to him for this purpose. The OPs launched a Scheme by name, TAF Scheme/Phir Monsoon Hungama that was valid from July, 2010 to September, 2010 for the retailers under which they were to give free gifts to the retailers on procuring a fixed target. One of the gifts in the scheme was AC-LG/Samsung, Base Model on activation of minimum 449 connections during the Scheme period. In another Scheme, the retailer was entitled to get a free LCD 22 on activation of 350 connections in July, 2010 subject to 500 + slab. 2. The complainant was maintaining a register regarding the above said sale and activation of the connection to the customers after receiving the documents and after completion of other formalities. His grievance is that he was not given the LCD 22 Air conditioner, etc., as mentioned in the Scheme. Those gifts were not given despite requests. 3. The defence set up by the OPs is that he could not fulfill the above conditions. 4. In para 10 of the impugned order, the State Commission has given the entire details which are reproduced as follows :- 0. The complainant claims that he activated 600 connections during the period of scheme, therefore, he was entitled for a free gift of AC-LG/Samsung Base Model. He further claims that he activated 399 connections in the month of July, 2010 only, and therefore, he was also entitled to get free gift of LCD 22 The categoric stand of opposite parties No. 1 and 2 is that as per terms and conditions applicable under the scheme, he was not entitled for both these gifts under the scheme (Ex.C-2), he was to activate 350 connections in the month of July, 2010 with overall slab of 500 + connections whereas he only activated 219 connections during this month out of which only 154 were eligible. For claiming Air Conditioner, he was required to achieve target of 499 eligible activations during the period of July, 2010 to September, 2010, but he activated only 451 eligible connections during this period. Thus, he was not eligible for getting free gift of LCD-22or AC. The complainant is relying upon the record/list of the connection activated by him during the period (Ex.C-3 to C-14), which has been challenged by the opposite parties and on the basis of terms and conditions of the scheme. The District forum has held that there is nothing on record that what other conditions were to be fulfilled by the complainant in order to get his reward, whereas these terms and conditions are printed on the back of the scheme floated by the opposite parties and proved by the complainant as Ex.C-2. Even on the front of the pamphlet issued for the scheme (Ex.C-2) it has been mentioned that CAF scheme + free SIM extra to be earned as per terms and conditions. A perusal of these terms and conditions shows that the slab was to be calculated on the basis of valid CAF + proof submitted within 14 days of activation. Similarly activation/OTAF was equivalent to a valid CAF proof submitted within 14 days of activation and usage for minimum period of two minutes was necessary each activation to be counted as a valid entry and this should happen within 30 days of the activation. All OTAF with valid FRC (over Rs.34) are only valid to qualify for the scheme.The District Forum has completely overlooked these terms and conditions. It has further been wrongly held by the District Forum that the opposite parties have failed to challenge the genuineness of the extract of the record maintained by the complainant, whereas they have categorically stated that in their written reply as well as in affidavits that as per eligibility conditions all activations could not be counted for the award of the free gifts. In reply to the legal notice issued by the complainant (Ex.C-26), the opposite parties have categorically replied that he was not eligible for the gifts under the scheme because he did not fulfill the conditions and has not provided any retailer code or the demo number which is necessary to identify the retailer in the system. Month wise OTAF status has clearly been specified in the written reply. Apparently the complainant has failed to prove that he achieved the target of eligible activation under the scheme. A sales promotion scheme, floated by a company, cannot be dealt without taking into consideration the terms and conditions applicable to the scheme 5. The petitioner who argued the case in person was confronted with this para. He was given the opportunity to rebut the same. The petitioner produced a register which was not properly proved, but he admitted that his register does not fulfill the conditions detailed above. 6. Last, but not the least, to our mind, the petitioner is not a consumer. These are free gifts. The complainant, before the consumer fora , cannot enforce the OP to give him free gifts. 7. In view of that, the complaint is without merit and therefore the same is dismissed. The revision petition too, is dismissed.