ORDER Chander Shekhar Sharma, Presiding Member.1 This appeal is directed against the order passed by District Forum, Mandi, in Consumer Case No.128/2007, dated 15.1.2008, whereby the complaint was dismissed on the ground that the complainant is not a ‘consumer’ under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’, and it was also held that the complainant is not entitled for any compensation for faulty supply of goods by the opposite parties. Parties are hereinafter referred to as per their status in the complaint. 2. Facts of the case within narrow compass are that the complainant who was working as a Contractor had been allotted the work of replacement of roofing of E-V type residences at Slapper Colony Bhour by BBMB vide work order No.164/BBMB dated 23.2.2006. With a view to execute and carry out the work, the complaint had purchased corrugated sheets of flexo board from the opposite party No.1 on 2.4.2007 vide bill No.30503 for Rs.1,50,752/-. The complainant had paid Rs.1,50,000/- to the opposite party No.1 through cheque. The complainant had lifted the corrugated sheets of flexo board from the premises of the opposite party No.1 and had carried them to the work site on 3.4.2007. It was noticed that the goods sold by the opposite party No.1 were sub standard. Corrugated sheets of flexo board had started cracking and the Engineer Incharge of the work had not approved of their use. The complainant had immediately reported the supply of faulty goods to the opposite party No.1 on 3.4.2007. The opposite party No.1 was registered dealer of the opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.2 was stated manufacturer of the corrugated sheets of flaxo board. The opposite party No.1 had passed on the complaint of the complainant to the opposite party No.2 on 3.4.2007. The opposite party No.2 was requested to replace the faulty goods on 13.5.2007. It was also pleaded that the complainant had not been able to complete the work within the time stipulated due to fault of the opposite parties. The complainant was required to pay penalty for non completion of the work as per the terms and conditions of the work order. The opposite parties were required to pay the penalty aforesaid. The complainant had deployed three chowkidars for watch and ward purpose of corrugated sheets.The complainant was to pay Rs.3,000/- per month to each chowkidar. The complainant was required to pay penalty for non completion of the work as per the terms and conditions of the work order. The opposite parties were required to pay the penalty aforesaid. The complainant had deployed three chowkidars for watch and ward purpose of corrugated sheets.The complainant was to pay Rs.3,000/- per month to each chowkidar. The complainant had deployed eight workmen for execution of the work. The work force of the complainant had been idle. The complainant had suffered loss of Rs.1,13,900/-. Hence, deficiency of service had been alleged on the part of the opposite parties and in this background, present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 had been filed for deficiency of service against the opposite parties wherein complainant had prayed for refund of an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and an amount of Rs.9,000/- per month which was being spent by the complainant for protection of the material and also wages amounting to Rs.1,13,900/- paid to the labourers and chowkidars had been claimed and litigation expenses had been claimed to the tune of Rs.5,500/- and Rs.5,000/- had been claimed for mental tension and harassment. 3. In the present case, the opposite parties No.1 & 2 had resisted and contested the present complaint and their plea was to the effect that the complainant does not fall within the ambit of definition of a ‘consumer’ under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act since he was a contractor who was engaged in commercial activity and it was also pleaded that there was no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties since the corrugated sheets which were supplied to the complainant, they were not properly handled by his men and there was no manufacturing defect in the corrugated sheets of flaxo board and it was also pleaded that efforts were also made for amicable settlement earlier. The detailed version on the basis of which the complaint was contested and resisted by the opposite parties has been elaborately dealt by the Forum below in paras 2 & 3 of the order. 4. The detailed version on the basis of which the complaint was contested and resisted by the opposite parties has been elaborately dealt by the Forum below in paras 2 & 3 of the order. 4. In the present case, rejoinder to the complaint was also filed wherein the plea taken in the complaint was reiterated and the opposite parties No.1 & 2 had also filed sur-rejoinder in the present complaint wherein their main stand was to the effect that the complainant does not fall within the definition of a ‘consumer’ since he has undertaken Government contract which is exclusively for a commercial purpose. 5.Brief resume of evidence led by the parties in nutshell in the present case is that the complainant in support of his case has filed his own affidavit and placed reliance upon a number of documents, Annexures C.1 to C.11. 6. Opposite party No.1 in support of his case has filed his own affidavit and opposite party No.2 in support of its case has filed affidavit of Shri S,.K. Goel, authorized Officer of M/S Hyderabad Industries Ltd., K.G. Marg, Himalaya House, New Delhi and affidavit of Shri S.S. Rawat, working as Officer of Quality Control of M/S Hyderabad Industries Ltd. and placed reliance upon various documents, Annexures R.1 to R.2.II, which are copy of the letter dated 8.6.2007 addressed to Jai Mata Industries, Bhojpur (Sundernagar) by M/S Hyderabad Industries Ltd., copy of partnership deed, executants thereof are Ghanshayam Mahajan, Yash Paul Singh Gulati and Yash Kumar Sharma and copy of test certificate, dated 31.7.2007 in respect of Flex-O-Boards/Corrugated Sheets supplied to the complainant alongwith annexures. 7. In the present case, on the date of hearing on 18.11.2011, no one appeared on behalf of the appellant, as such we had not an opportunity of hearing learned Counsel for the appellant. We have only heard learned Counsel for respondents No.1 and 2. 8. 7. In the present case, on the date of hearing on 18.11.2011, no one appeared on behalf of the appellant, as such we had not an opportunity of hearing learned Counsel for the appellant. We have only heard learned Counsel for respondents No.1 and 2. 8. We have perused the grounds of appeal taken by the appellant in the present case and in the appeal the main stand taken by the appellant was that the order of the Forum below is perverse, erroneous and is not legally sustainable and the Forum below had misconstrued the definition of a ‘consumer’ and had wrongly concluded that the complainant does not fall within the definition of a ‘consumer’ under the Act and the communications made between the consumer and the opposite parties clearly point out the defective quality of the material supplied to the appellant and the findings arrived at by the Forum below on Issues No.1 & 2 are hypothetical. As such, prayer had been made for accepting the present appeal and setting aside the order of the Forum below by allowing the relief claimed in the complaint. 9. Mr. Varun Rana and Mr. Lalit Guleria, learned Counsel for respondents No.1 & 2 respectively had supported the order of the Forum below and their main emphasis in the arguments was to the effect that since the complainant was engaged in commercial activity who has taken large work of contract, as such the complainant does not fall within the definition of a ‘consumer’ as per Section 2(1)(d) of the Act and the Forum below had rightly dismissed the complaint by holding that the complainant does not fall within the ambit of definition of a ‘consumer’ under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act and the finding of the Forum below to the effect that there was no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties is also legally warranted in view of evidence on record. 10. 10. After taking into consideration various grounds taken in the appeal and hearing the learned Counsel for the respondents and going through the record of the case, we are of the considered view that there is infirmity in the order of the Forum below and the Forum below had rightly concluded that the complainant does not fall within the definition of a ‘consumer’ under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act since the complainant had been registered as ‘A’ Class contractor and he had been engaged in commercial activity as he had been allotted work of replacement of roofing of E-V type residences at Slapper Colony vide the work order No.164/BBMB, dated 23.2.2006, Annexure C.1 and in execution of that work, he had purchased corrugated sheets of Flaxo Board from the opposite parties and had made payment of Rs.1,50,000/- to the opposite parties through the cheque as per Annexure C.3. The definition of a ‘consumer’ as given in the Act under Section 2(1)(d) thereof is reproduced below for ready reference:- “2. The definition of a ‘consumer’ as given in the Act under Section 2(1)(d) thereof is reproduced below for ready reference:- “2. Definitions.——(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,——Xxx xxx xxx xxx(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 service 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 purpose;Xxx xxx xxxxxx 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”.This Section clearly provides that a ‘consumer’ does not include a person who obtains goods for commercial purpose and the explanation appended to this Section provides that the ‘commercial purpose’ does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self employment. In the present case, there is not even a whisper in the complaint to the effect that the complainant had taken the contract for earning his livelihood by means of self employment. In the present case, there is not even a whisper in the complaint to the effect that the complainant had taken the contract for earning his livelihood by means of self employment. The Forum below had elaborately discussed this point in paras 5 & 6 of the order and had rightly concluded that the complainant does not fall within the ambit of definition of a ‘consumer’ under Section 2(1)(d) of Act, reproduced above since the complainant had purchased the goods for commercial purpose and not with a view to earn his livelihood by means of self employment. There is also no infirmity in the order of the Forum below on the finding on point No.2 that the complainant is not entitled for any compensation for faulty goods and the Forum below had rightly placed reliance upon the report of Shri S.S.Rawat who had inspected the goods and upon his affidavit filed before the Forum below wherein the damage to the corrugated sheets had been attributed to the complainant and no evidence of any expert had been filed by the complainant in the present case. 11.The word ‘commercial purpose’ has been interpreted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxmi Engineering Works Versus P.S.G. Industrial Institute, (1995) 3 SCC 583 elaborately. For taking this view, we are also supported by our recent decision given in First Appeal No.134/2010, titled M/S Jindal Pipes Ltd. and Ors. Versus Shri Sanjeev Sharma, decided on 29.11.2011. 12. No other point was urged. In view of the aforesaid discussion and facts and circumstances of the case, there is no merit in the present appeal which is dismissed and consequently order of the District Forum, Mandi, passed in Complaint Case No.128/2007, dated 15.1.2008 is upheld. No order as to costs. Copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost as per rules.