No one appears on behalf of the respondent even on the second call. Respondent is, therefore, proceeded ex-parte. 2. This revision is directed against the order of Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, “the State Commission”) dated 16.7.2014 whereby the State Commission endorsed the order of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal. -2- 3. Learned Shri Sanjay Goswami, Advocate for the petitioner has contended that the orders of the Foras below are not sustainable because both the Foras below have ignored the fact that the complainant is not a consumer in terms of the definition of consumer given in Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and as such he had no authority to maintain the consumer complaint. In support of this contention, he has drawn our attention to the copy of the application for allotment submitted by the complainant Som Dutt Sharma wherein it is mentioned in bold letters “Application for the allotment of commercial spaces.” It is contended that the definition of consumer under Section 2 (1) (d) excludes the person who avails or hires services for commercial purpose. Therefore, the respondent is not a consumer and as such the Foras below have entertained the complaint without jurisdiction. 4. In order to appreciate the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner it is necessary to have a look on the definition of the “Consumer” relating to hiring or availing of services as provided under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act, which reads as under: - "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 -3- 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” 5. On reading of the above definition it is evident that a person is a consumer who buys any goods for consideration or hires any services for consideration and also includes a user of such goods or a beneficiary of such services. To this vide definition the section itself provides an exclusion and it excludes a person from the definition of consumer who obtains such goods for resale or any commercial purpose or who avails services of any description free of charge or under a contract of personal -4- service for any commercial purpose. The legislature has also provided for a further exception by providing the explanation envisaging that commercial purpose does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and the services availed by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. 6. On perusal of the application of allotment and the record it is obvious that the respondent/complainant had booked a commercial space with the petitioner developer. Thus, it is clear that the services of the petitioner were hired by the complainant for commercial purpose. There is no evidence on record that the petitioner is covered under the exception carved out by the explanation to Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that the respondent is not a consumer as such he could not have maintained the consumer complaint. The Foras below while allowing the complaint have lost sight of the above material aspect of the case. Therefore, their orders cannot be sustained. 7. In view of the discussion above, we allow the revision petition, set aside the impugned orders and dismiss the complaint. The respondent/complainant, however, shall be at liberty to seek redressal of his grievance by approaching the appropriate forum. He may seek -5- condonation of delay in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Laxmi Engineering Works vs. PSG Industrial Institute (1995) 3 SCC 583. | 
