The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the definition of 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the exclusion of disputes relating to commercial purposes.

ORDER

J.M. Malik, Presiding Member - The State Commission while accepting the appeal arising out of order of District Forum held that since the petitioner was not a consumer, the complaint filed by him was not maintainable. Aggrieved by that order, the present revision petition has been filed. There is a delay of 114 days.

2. First of all, we decide the question of limitation. The pleas set up in the application for condonation of delay shortly stated are these. After receipt of certified copy on 30.11.2011, the petitioner could not go over to Chennai immediately. He went to Chennai on 20.12.2011. No reason has been given why there was a delay of 20 days. His Advocate wanted to study the papers at Chennai. He gave the opinion on 26.1.2012. The petitioner did not have any contact in Delhi. He got the address of Counsel at Delhi only on 20.2.2012. The papers were sent in March, 2012. The Advocate at Delhi wanted clarifications which were received in the second week of March, 2012. Thereafter the revision petition was filed. The record reveals that there is delay of 114 days. The learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that due to mistake on the part of the Counsel delay should be condoned.

3. The above said pleadings clearly go to show that there was no genuine mistake on the part of the Advocate. The names of the Advocates were also withheld. The litigant is supposed to be vigilant and should have filed the appeal within time. Why an Advocate should take 114 days in order to give advice in such like small cases. He should have given the advice in a jiffy. The case of the petitioner is clearly barred by time and is supported by the authorities reported in Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, (2011) 4 CPJ 63 (SC); R.B. Ramlingam v. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC); Ram Lal and Others v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 361; Sow Kamalabai W/o Narasaiyya Shrimal and Narsaiyya S/o Sayanna Shrimal v. Ganpat Vithalroa Gavare, 2007 (1) Mh.LJ 807; Banshi v. Lakshmi Narain, 1993 (1) RLR 68.

4. Now, we turn to the merits of this case. Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the view taken by the State Commission is incorrect. He has also drawn our attention towards Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. Kartick Das, (1994) 4 SCC 225, which was relied upon by the State Commission. He contended that as per paras 26 and 27, the view taken by the State Commission is incorrect. However, in paras 33, 34, 35, it was held:

"33. Certainly, Clauses (iii) and (iv) of Section 2(1)(c) of the Act do not arise in this case. Therefore, what requires to be examined is, whether any unfair trade practice has been adopted. The expression unfair trade practice as per rules shall have the same meaning as defined under Section 36A of Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969. That again cannot apply because the company is not trading in shares. The share means a share in the capital. The object of issuing the same is for building up capital. To raise capital, means making arrangements for carrying on the trade. It is not a practice relating to the carrying of any trade. Creation of share capital without allotment of shares does not bring shares into existence. Therefore, our answer is that a prospective investor like the respondent or the association is not a consumer under the Act.

34. From the above discussion, it is clear that the question of the appellant company trading in shares does not arise.

35. In view of our answers to questions 1 and 2, it follows that the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has no jurisdiction whatsoever."

5. In addition, in the complaint itself, it was averred that

"III. I. The 1st complainant herein submits that he is a businessman and residing at the above address. The 2nd complainant is a Consumer Protection Organization espousing the grievance of consumers in Cuddalore District within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Forum."

6. There was no other pleading. Learned Couns