Delay condoned.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
By the impugned order, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission (hereinafter referred to as `the National Commission') dismissed the
original complaints as, in its opinion, the complainants were not “consumer” within
the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, `the
Act') and Respondent No.1 was not a “service provider” within the meaning of
Section 2(1)(o) of the Act. The point raised in this case is concluded by the judgment
of this case in Faqir Chand Gulati vs. Uppal Agencies Private Limited and Another
[2008 (10) SCC 345] in which this Court dealt with a case similar to that of the
appellants and held that complaint is maintainable.
In view of this, the appeals are allowed, impugned order is set aside and
the matter is remitted to the National Commission for disposal of the complaints in
accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties.
As the complaint petitions were filed in the years 1998 and 1999, the
National Commission is requested to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as
possible.
[G.S. SINGHVI] New Delhi, January 05, 2009.