This revision petition under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) is directed against order dated 17.12.2012 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan in Appeals No.809 & 811/2012.  By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the appeals filed by the petitioner herein, (the manufacturer) and Respondent No.2, (the dealer) of the petitioner against the order passed by the District Forum, Sawai Madhopur.

        The complainant, (Respondent No.1 herein) had purchased two air-conditioners from Respondent No.2 by paying a total consideration of `91,000/-.  As the air-conditioners did not function properly, he requested Respondent No.2 to get them checked by a technician.  Having failed to get any response, the complainant sent a legal notice to Respondent No.2, but without any success.  Left with no alternative, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum claiming a sum of `2,50,000/- as compensation for physical and mental tension and a further amount of `10,000/- as costs.

        Petitioner (the manufacturer) as well as Respondent No.2 (the dealer) chose not to appear before the District Forum. 

        The District Forum took the view that since the opposite parties had not filed any response to the complaint, facts pleaded by the complainant were deemed to be accepted by both of them.  Accordingly, the District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties to pay to the complainant a sum of `91,000/- towards cost of the two air-conditioners with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realization.  The District Forum also awarded a compensation of `5,000/- for financial, mental and physical agony to the complainant.  A sum of `1,000/- was awarded as cost of litigation.

        As noted above, the State Commission has affirmed the order of the District Forum.

        The main ground on which the orders passed by the fora below  are challenged is that the complainant could not be treated as a ‘consumer’ as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act inasmuch as, as per their own showing the air-conditioners were purchased for being installed in a three-star hotel.  It is thus pleaded that the impugned orders be set aside and case remitted back to the District Forum for adjudication on the question of jurisdiction.  Though there may be some merit in the stand taken by Ld. counsel for the petitioner but bearing in mind the fact that neither the petitioner-manufacturer nor their dealer chose to contest the case before the District Forum, raising such a plea and the quantum of amount involved, we are not inclined to entertain this petition under Section 21 of the Act, more so when we do not find any material irregularity in the orders passed by the fora below on the merits of the complaint.

        Accordingly, we dismiss the revision petition without adjudicating on aforesaid technical objection raised by the petitioner.

        Counsel for the petitioner states that the entire decretal amount has since been deposited before the District Forum.  If that be so, it would be open to Respondent No.1/complainant to withdraw the said amount.

        Needless to add that upon receipt of the decretal amount, the two air-conditioners in question shall be returned to the petitioner.

        There shall be no order as to costs.