Shri Navin Kumar, the complainant herein has filed instant complaint against the opposite parties alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in relation to a commercial premises booked by the complainant in the development project, namely, “Omaxe Connaught Place” undertaken by the opposite parties. The first and foremost question which needs to be answered at the stage of admission is whether or not the complainant is a consumer as defined under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and he has a locus standi to file the consumer complaint. 2. In order to find answer to the above question it would be useful to have a look on the definition of the term “Consumer” as provided under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act. The section 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” 3. Bare reading of the above makes it clear that consumer is a person who buys any goods or hires or avails of service of any one for consideration whether already paid or to be paid in future. The definition has an inbuilt exception which provides that if the goods are bought or the services are hired or availed for commercial purpose, the person concerned shall be excluded from the definition of consumer. Undisputedly in the instant case the complainant has booked the commercial premises in the development project undertaken by the opposite parties. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that the complainant had hired/availed of services of the opposite parties for commercial purpose. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the complainant falls within the explanation given in the definition of consumer which provides that for the purpose of Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act, commercial purpose does not include use by a person goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. 4. We do not find merit in the contention for the reason that it is nowhere pleaded in the complaint that the complainant had booked the shop in question with the intention of using the same for earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. On the contrary on perusal of the averments made in para-5 it is clear that the services were availed not for earning livelihood by means of self-employment but for commercial purpose. The relevant paragraph 5 of the complaint is reproduced as under: - “That the opposite parties had specifically promised to the complainant that before offer for fit outs/offer of possession of shop, they will let out the shop of the complainant and he would be required to enter into an agreement with the intending lessee to lease out the shop so he will not have to worry about the commercial viability of the project. In order to convince further, the opposite parties had also shown agreement to lease/term sheet/letter of offer and acceptance already executed by the opposite party No.1/company for leasing out shop in favour of M/s Kripa Exports Inc. under the brand name “The Craft Gallery” (“the intending lessee”).” 5. In view of the above, it is clear that the complainant had booked the shop for commercial purpose as an investment. Therefore, he is not a consumer as envisaged Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act as such the complainant does not have locus standi to raise a consumer dispute. Complaint is accordingly rejected. 6. It is made clear that this order will not come in the way of the complainant to avail of his remedy against the opposite parties by approaching the appropriate forum having jurisdiction. | 
