PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, MEMBER This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the impugned order dated 20.4.2011 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (in short, he State Commission in Complaint No. CC/09/18 Poonam Chambers Commercial Premises Cooperative Society Ltd. Vs. M/s. Aluplex India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. by which complaint was rejected at admission stage. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Complainant/appellant filed complaint for recovery of damages for the work left unfinished by OP/Respondent which was got completed through other agencies by the complainant. Learned State Commission vide impugned order dismissed complaint at admission stage on the ground that contract was terminated by the complainant earlier to filing of complaint, hence, no relationship of consumer and service provider subsisted between the parties and there is no consumer dispute under Consumer Protection Act. It was further observed that complainant may pursue the matter according to law in Civil Court. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that learned State Commission has committed error in dismissing complaint at admission stage on the ground of termination of working contract because even after termination of contract, complainant was entitled to get relief from Consumer Fora, hence, appeal may be accepted and impugned order be set aside and matter may be remanded to learned State Commission for deciding it on merits. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law and further submitted that as complainant obtained services for commercial purposes, complaint was not maintainable, hence, appeal may be dismissed. 5. As per averments of the complaint, OP was provided work contract and as OP left work without completing it, complainant terminated contract and got it completed from other agencies and filed complaint for recovery of amount due to deficiency of service. Learned State Commission dismissed complaint at admission stage on the ground that work contract has already been terminated on 23.2.2007, hence, relationship of consumers and service provider not subsisted at the time of filing complaint. 6. Once parties entered into a contract and OP agreed to provide service to the complainant and if OP stopped work, complainant is entitled to file claim on account of deficiency of service even after termination of contract and State Commission has committed error in dismissing complaint at admission stage on the ground of termination of working contract. Merely by termination of working contract it cannot be inferred that there was no relationship of consumer and service provider between the parties. This can be explained by an example - if first party agrees to sell flat and second party makes the payment but does not get possession and first party terminates agreement even then second party will be entitled to file complaint against the first party under Consumer Protection Act. In such circumstances, learned State Commission has committed error in dismissing complaint at admission stage. 7. Learned Counsel for the respondent further submitted that as appellant is a commercial premises and supply of material was for commercial purpose for earning profits, complaint was not maintainable. In support of his argument, he has drawn my attention towards name of the appellant which incorporates word ommercialin the name. Merely because word ommercialexists in the name of complainant, it cannot be inferred that work contract was given for commercial purposes. Learned Counsel for the appellant has filed bye-laws and in Object Clause, it has nowhere been mentioned that this Society was formed for commercial activities. In such circumstances, prima facie, complaint cannot be dismissed at admission stage on this ground that services were availed for commercial purposes. Respondent may raise objection in written statement before the State Commission and State Commission will decide any such objection after hearing both the parties. 7. Consequently, appeal is accepted and impugned order dated 20.4.2011 is set aside and learned State Commission is directed to proceed with the complaint and decide it on merits after taking written statement, evidence, etc., of the parties. 8. Parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 4th April, 2013. A copy of this order be sent to the State Commission.