ORDER P.S. Rana (R), President. - Present appeal is filed under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against order dated 13.04.2016 passed by Learned District Forum Una camp at Hamirpur in consumer complaint No.40/2015 title Smt. Arti Katoch v. M/s. Edu. Smart Services Private Ltd. & Anr. Brief facts of Case: 2. Smt. Arti Katoch filed consumer complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 pleaded therein that complainant is principal of Bhagwati Public School Jalari Post Office Jalari Tehsil Nadaun District Hamirpur H.P. It is pleaded that complainant and opposite parties entered into an agreement on dated 11.02.2010 for installation and implementation of smart class programme. It is pleaded that opposite party assured the complainant for proper service of smart class programme in school premises. It is further pleaded that opposite party did not provide service as per agreement dated 11.02.2010. It is further pleaded that school authorities advertise that school would start smart class education programme and it is pleaded that on assurance many students obtained admission in the school. It is further pleaded that due to deficiency in service of opposite party complainant had sustained loss of Rs. 5.00 lac. Complainant sought relief of Rs. 5.00 lac along-with interest @ 12% per annum and also sought compensation of Rs. 50000/-(Fifty thousand) for mental pain and harassment and also sought relief of litigation costs to the tune of Rs. 40000/-(Forty thousand). 3. On dated 13.05.2015 learned District Forum passed the order that notice was issued to opposite parties by registered letter. Learned District Forum also ordered that registered letter did not receive back either served or unserved. Learned District Forum further ordered that thirty days expired. Learned District Forum presumed deemed service upon opposite parties. On dated 13.05.2015 learned District Forum proceeded ex-parte against opposite parties. 4. Learned District Forum ordered opposite parties to pay Rs. 2.00 lac to the complainant as damage within thirty days along with interest @ 9% per annum. Learned District Forum further ordered that opposite parties would pay punitive compensation of Rs. 10000/-(Ten thousand) to the complainant. Learned District Forum further ordered that opposite parties would also pay costs of Rs. 5000/-(Five thousand). Feeling aggrieved against order passed by Learned District Forum opposite parties filed present appeal before State Commission. 5. We have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of parties and we have also perused entire record carefully. 6. 10000/-(Ten thousand) to the complainant. Learned District Forum further ordered that opposite parties would also pay costs of Rs. 5000/-(Five thousand). Feeling aggrieved against order passed by Learned District Forum opposite parties filed present appeal before State Commission. 5. We have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of parties and we have also perused entire record carefully. 6. Following points arises for determination in present appeal. 1. Whether agreement for smart class programme annexure-C1 was executed by the complainant with opposite parties for commercial purpose and whether complainant did not fall within the definition of consumer as defined under Consumer Protection Act 1986. 2. Final order. Findings upon point No. 1 with reasons: 7. Complainant filed affidavit by way of evidence annexure-C-28 placed on record. There is recital in affidavit that deponent is principal of Bhagwati Public School Jalari Post Office Jalari Tehsil Nadaun District Hamirpur H.P. There is further recital in affidavit that deponent and opposite party entered into agreement on dated 11.02.2010 for installation and implementation of smart class programme in the school premises of deponent. There is further recital in affidavit that opposite party did not provide any service as per agreement dated 11.02.2010. There is further recital in affidavit that deponent advertised that school would start smart class education programme. There is further recital in affidavit that many parents admitted their children in the school. There is further recital in affidavit that due to non start of smart class programme deponent had sustained loss to the tune of Rs. 5.00 lac. 8. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellants that agreement for smart class programme annexure-C1 was executed inter se parties and violation of terms and condition of agreement could be decided by civil court is decided accordingly. State Commission has carefully perused the agreement for smart class programme annexure-C1 placed on record. It is proved on record that written agreement was executed inter se parties and various terms and conditions were fixed as per written agreement executed inter se parties. State Commission is of the opinion that violation of written agreement cannot be adjudicated before Consumer Fora. It is well settled law that proceedings before Consumer Fora are summary proceedings. State Commission is of the opinion that violation of terms and conditions of agreement require adjudication by civil court. State Commission is of the opinion that violation of written agreement cannot be adjudicated before Consumer Fora. It is well settled law that proceedings before Consumer Fora are summary proceedings. State Commission is of the opinion that violation of terms and conditions of agreement require adjudication by civil court. It is held that it is not expedient in the ends of justice and on the principle of natural justice to decide the violation of terms and conditions of written agreement annexure-C1 placed on record because elaborate inquiry is required to ascertain violation of terms and conditions of written agreement. 9. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellants that agreement was executed by the complainant for commercial purpose for running school and complainant is not consumer is also decided accordingly. It is well settled law that commercial user cannot maintain consumer complaint. See 2017 (3) CPR 21 NC title Ramesh Kumar v. G-7 Computer Business Private Ltd. and others . Also see 2017(2) CPR 510 NC DDA v. Ghansayam Dass . Also see 2017(2) CPR 51 NC Santosh Hans and others v. M/s TDI Infrastructures Ltd. & others . Also see 2017 (2) CPR 64 NC Ganesh Chandra v. JMD Ltd . It is also proved on record that object was to earn maximum profit by the complainant. There is no recital in the complaint and affidavit filed by complainant that complainant is running school for the purpose of earning her livelihood by means of self employment. As per section 2(d)(ii) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 any service hired for commercial purpose would not come within the definition of consumer. Even complainant had paid consideration amounts to opposite parties in the capacity of Principal Bhagvati Public School Jalari. As per Oxford dictionary Principal means head of school. It means complainant has given employment to other teachers also in school and does not falls within definition of self employment because person who gives employment to other teachers does not fall within definition of self employment as defined in explanation of section 2(d)(ii) of Consumer Protection Act 1986. 10. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent that order passed by learned District Forum is in accordance with law and in accordance with proved facts is decided accordingly. 10. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent that order passed by learned District Forum is in accordance with law and in accordance with proved facts is decided accordingly. It is held that complainant has hired the services of opposite party for running school and to earn commercial profits which falls within the definition of commercial activities. It is held that complainant did not fall within the definition of consumer. In view of the above stated facts it is held that learned District Forum has committed material illegality by way of entertaining and deciding the complaint qua commercial activities on merits. In view of the stated facts point No.1 is decided accordingly. Point No. 2: Final Order 11. In view of findings upon point No.1 above appeal is allowed. Order of learned District Forum dated 13.04.2016 announced in consumer complaint No.40/2015 titled Smt. Arti Katoch v. M/s. Edu. Smart Services Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. is set aside and complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed and it is held that agreement was executed by complainant with opposite parties for commercial activities. It is also held that complainant did not fall within the definition of consumer as defined under Consumer Protection Act 1986. Agreement for smart class programme annexure-C1 executed between the parties will form part and parcel of order. It is held that complainant would be at liberty to approach the civil court for redressal of her grievances in accordance with law. 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 free of costs strictly as per rules. Appeal is disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.