ORDER P.S. Rana (R) President. - Present appeal is filed under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against order dated 23.05.2016 passed by Learned District Forum in Consumer complaint No. 44 of 2015 title Gaurav Sood v. General Manager Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and Anr . Brief facts of Case: 2. Complainant namely Gaurav Sood filed consumer complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 pleaded therein that complainant obtained telephone connection No. 2658972. It is pleaded that telephone of complainant remained non-operative. It is pleaded that complaint was lodged with opposite party but opposite party did not remove the defect despite complaint. It is pleaded that complainant also served notice through speed post to the opposite party. Complainant sought relief of Rs. 50000/- (Fifty thousand) with interest @ 18% per annum for causing mental torture and causing monetary loss. 3. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite parties pleaded therein that telephone of complainant no. 2658972 remained partially non-operative due to fault of underground cable during the period 07.01.2015 to 13.01.2015. It is pleaded that complainant was informed about the nature of fault. It is pleaded that defect was removed on dated 13.01.2015. It is pleaded that telephone of complainant was disconnected temporarily on 20.03.2015 due to non-payment of bills dated 03.02.2015, 03.03.2015, Gaurav Sood v. General Manager Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. & Anr. 03.04.2015 & 03.05.2015 amounting to Rs. 3563/- (Three thousand five hundred sixty three). Prayer for dismissal of complaint sought. 4. Learned District Forum dismissed the complaint. Feeling aggrieved against order passed by Learned District Forum complainant filed present appeal before State Commission. 5. None appeared on behalf of appellant at the time of arguments before State Commission. State Commission decided to dispose of appeal on merits. State Commission heard learned advocate appearing on behalf of respondents and State Commission also perused entire record carefully. 6. Following points arises for determination in present appeal. 1. Whether appeal filed by the appellant is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of appeal. 2. Final order. Findings upon point No. 1 with reasons: 7. Complainant filed affidavit in evidence. There is recital in the affidavit that opposite parties illegally and without any notice disconnected the telephone connection of deponent which was in use for the last six years. 2. Final order. Findings upon point No. 1 with reasons: 7. Complainant filed affidavit in evidence. There is recital in the affidavit that opposite parties illegally and without any notice disconnected the telephone connection of deponent which was in use for the last six years. There is further recital in the affidavit that telephone was used by Gaurav Sood v. General Manager Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. & Anr. deponent for his convenience, for allied internet facilities and for his pharmacist trade. There is further recital in the affidavit that deponent is working as pharmacist in firm Punjab Coal Company near bus stand Shimla for the last seven years. There is further recital in the affidavit that telephone stopped working and matter was reported to the opposite parties. There is further recital in the affidavit that deponent has suffered immense mental harassment as his trade as pharmacist suffered and deponent was deprived of internet knowledge concerning his pharmacist job. 8. Opposite parties filed affidavit of Shri Sanjay Kashyap Divisional Engineer posted in the office of GMTD BSNL Shimla. There is recital in the affidavit that there was partial disruption in the service of telephone. There is further recital in the affidavit that telephone was disconnected temporarily on 20.03.2015 due to non-payment of bills dated 03.02.2015, 03.03.2015, 03.04.2015 and 03.05.2015 amounting to Rs. 3563/- (Three thousand five hundred sixty three). There is further recital in the affidavit that complainant was informed through IVRS system for payment of pending bills. 9. Complainant has himself admitted in the affidavit that he is working as Pharmacist in the Firm Punjab Coal Company near bus stand Shimla for the last 7 years. Gaurav Sood v. General Manager Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. & Anr. Complainant has admitted in affidavit that he has obtained connection of telephone for his convenience and for allied internet facilities and for his use as pharmacist and trade. It is proved on record that complainant has obtained telephone connection for commercial purpose for advancement of business of Punjab Coal Company being employee of firm Punjab Coal Company. There is no evidence on record that complainant obtained telephone connection for purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. It is held that self-employment and employee of another person are two different concepts under law. 10. Consumer is defined in section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act 1986. There is no evidence on record that complainant obtained telephone connection for purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. It is held that self-employment and employee of another person are two different concepts under law. 10. Consumer is defined in section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act 1986. As per section 2(1)(d)(ii) a person who avails services for commercial purpose would not be consumer under Consumer Protection Act 1986. There is no recital in the complaint and in the affidavit that service availed by the complainant was exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. Concept of self-employment is missing in the present complaint. On the contrary complainant has himself admitted that he is employee of firm Punjab Coal Company. It is held that employee of Punjab Coal Company does not fall within the definition of self-employment. It is held that complainant did not within the definition of consumer as defined under section Gaurav Sood v. General Manager Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. & Anr. 2(1)(d)(ii) of Consumer Protection Act 1986. In view of above stated facts point No. 1 is decided accordingly. Point No. 2: Final Order 11. In view of findings upon point No. 1 appeal is dismissed and order of Learned District Forum is affirmed. Parties are left to bear their own litigation costs before State Commission. File of learned District Forum along-with certified copy of order be sent back forthwith and file of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion forthwith. Certified copy of order be transmitted to parties forthwith strictly as per rules. Appeal is disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.