Complainant/appellants purchased an industrial plot from the respondents. Possession of the plot was handed over to the appellants on 19.1.2006. Appellant completed the building and started commercial production on 17.4.2007. As per terms and conditions stipulated in the allotment letter dated 23.12.2005, 20% rebate was to be given on the total cost of land if the industrial unit starts commercial production within 3 years from the date of offer of possession. Offer was made to the appellant on 19.4.2007 and the appellant started its commercial production after completing all the formalities. Occupation Certificate was issued by Respondent No.2 on 12.4.2007. 20% subsidy as per letter of allotment dated 23.12.2005 on the cost of land amounting to Rs.82,24,800/- was released to the appellant on 15.10.2009 vide Cheque No.126673. Appellant filed the complaint before the State Commission alleging that due to delay in giving rebate on the cost of industrial plot, it suffered huge loss on account of interest on the amount of Rs.15 lakh which was given to the Complainant as rebate of 12% on the price of the plot. State Commission, relying upon the definition of ‘consumer’ given in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act and the judgement of the Supreme Court in Birla Technologies Ltd. Vs. Neutral Glass and Allied Industries Ltd. – 2011 (1) CPR 1 (SC) held that since the appellant had availed of the services of the respondent for a commercial purpose, complaint filed by it was not maintainable as he did not fall within the definition of the word ‘consumer’ in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. We agree with the view taken by the State Commission. Section 2(1)(d) of the Act which defines ‘consumer’ reads 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. It is not in dispute before us that the appellant has installed factory in a plot and has employed nearly 6,000 persons. It makes readymade garments and exports them to foreign countries. His total export order is of Rs.40 crore approximately. Para-12 of the complaint reads as under : That the Complainant firm made investment of several crores of rupees on the creation of fixed assets and had provided employment to about 6000 persons and made readymade garment export of Rs.40 crores approx. thereby the Complainant firm earned valuable foreign exchange also. The Complainant firm had achieved its social-economic commitment towards the State and the Country by generating revenue and creating employment for the State. Supreme Court in Birla Technologies case (supra) has held as under : In view of the findings of the National Commission that the goods sold by the appellant to the respondent/complainant amounted to ‘goods’ and that such goods were purchased for commercial purpose of earning more profits, there could be no dispute that even the services which were offered had to be for the commercial purpose. Nothing was argued to the contrary. It seems that the whole error has crept in because of the wrong factual observation that the complaint was filed on 1.8.2000. In that view, it has to be held that the complaint itself was not maintainable, firstly, on the count that under Section 2(1)(d)(i), the goods have been purchased for commercial purposes and on the second count that the services were hired or availed of for commercial purposes. The matter does not come even under the Explanation which was introduced on the same day i.e. on 15.3.2003 by way of the amendment by the same Amendment Act, as it is nobody’s case that the goods bought and used by the Respondent herein and the services availed by the Respondent were exclusively for the purpose of earning the Respondent’s livelihood by means of self-employment. In that view, it will have to be held that the complaint itself was not maintainable in toto. Since the appellant is a commercial undertaking and employs 6,000 persons and exports goods worth Rs.40 crore, it would not fall within the definition of the word ‘consumer’ as defined 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. Section 2(1)(d)(ii) specifically excludes a person who avails of any services for commercial purpose. Order of the State Commission is in line with the judgement passed by the Supreme Court. No case for interference is made out. Dismissed. Appellants, if so advised, would be at liberty to seek relief from any other Forum along with an application under Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act for condoning the delay for the time spent before the consumer fora, keeping in mind the observations made by the Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works vs.PSG Industrial Institute – (1995) 3 SCC 583. | 
