SPIRIT INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD Vs. NAVINDER UPPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under sec. 21(b) of the Act 1986 in challenge to the Order dtd. 9/9/2015 of the State Commission in appeal no. 1243 of 2014 arising out of the Order dtd. 25/7/2014 of the District Commission in complaint no.340 of 2013.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that complaint no. 340 of 2013 was initially dismissed by the District Commission vide its Order dtd. 25/7/2014 on ground that the complainants are not "consumer" within the meaning of Sec. 2(1)(d) of the Act 1986. Appeal no. 1243 of 2014 filed by the complainants was allowed by the State Commission vide its impugned Order dtd. 9/9/2015 wherein the State Commission held that the complainants were "consumer" and accordingly remanded the case to the District Commission for deciding the same on merits. However, during the pendency of the instant petition before this Commission the complaint has already been decided by the District Commission vide its Order dtd. 1/3/2021 wherein the District Commission has dismissed the complaint in default but with liberty to the complainants to approach it again if their grievance is not redressed in accordance with law ("Since 10/5/2016 neither the complainant nor the OP have approached this Commission. We feel that no purpose will be served to continue with this file and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach this Commission again if his grievance is not redressed in accordance with law."). The learned counsel submits that as on date no complaint subsists since the same has been dismissed by the District Commission but the issue which was decided by the State Commission i.e. whether or not the complainants were "consumer" has as yet not been looked into by this Commission. The submission is that though the matter has become infructuous at this stage and the petition may be dismissed as such but liberty may be provided to the petitioner to revive its petition in the eventuality of the District Commission restoring the complaint.

(3.) The learned counsel for the respondents-complainants submits that in the given facts and circumstances the petition before this Commission has become infructuous at this stage. He further submits that he has no objection to liberty being provided to the petitioner to revive its petition in respect of the question whether or not the complainants are "consumer" under Sec. 2(1)(d) of the Act 1986 in case the complaint gets restored before the District Commission.