For the Appellant (s) : Mr. Vipin Singhania, Mr. Tushar Arora and Mr. Divakar Chiraniya, Advocate Dated : 10.09.2024 ORDER (ORAL) Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant in detail and examined the records. Learned Counsel for the Appellant argued that the State Commission erred in consideration of facts and law and its findings wherein it has concluded that the Complainant is not a consumer. Such finding is fundamentally erroneous. He vehemently argued that there has been a manufacturing defect in the machine itself and that the contention with respect to the short circuiting as a consequence of which the machine in question was destroyed by fire, is untenable. It is clear from the evidence that there was manufacturing defect in the machine and the wiring as a consequence the fire occurred and the machine got destroyed. He insisted that notwithstanding the technicalities involved in determining the cause of fire due to which the machine got destroyed, the scope of consumer fora which are handling wide range of matters is large and capable of examining evidence and dispose of the case on merits. Such consideration and disposal are in accordance with law. -3- Heard the learned Counsel in detail. Perusal of the records and order of the learned State Commission dated 15.07.2024 reveals that the State Commission has gone into details with respect to the incident of fire due to which the machine in question was destroyed by fire and considered that determination whether the cause of fire was due to an electric short circuit or due to manufacturing defect in the machine as material issue. After due consideration of the facts and circumstances including the issues raised by the learned counsel for the Appellant with respect to the scope for cause of fire as well as consideration of the technical issues with respect to the reasons due to which the fire occurred, we are of the considered view that the order of the learned State Commission dated 15.07.2024 in Complaint No.2/2023 is appropriate wherein it has allowed this dispute to be considered by the appropriate civil court as the matter entailed evaluation of complicated questions of law and technicalities and evidence that was required to be adduced so as to determine the liability of the parties. After due consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case and perusal of the records, we find no reason to interfere with the detailed and well-reasoned order passed by the learned State Commission dated 15.07.2024. -4- First Appeal No.679 of 2024 is accordingly dismissed at this stage. Needless to say that the Appellant is at liberty to file a suit before the competent civil court and also invoke the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act 1963 for this purpose. All pending applications, if any, are also disposed of accordingly. | 
