These cross Appeals are directed against order dated 06.12.2013 delivered by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, at Jaipur (for short “the State Commission”) in Complaints No.14 & 15 of 2006.   Appeals No.14 & 15 of 2014 have been filed by the Complainants, whereas Appeals No.7 & 8 of 2014 are by the Opposite Parties.  By the said order, the Complaints have been allowed and the Opposite Party has been directed to pay to the complainants certain amounts, as indicated in the impugned order, as compensation for loss of the stocks of coriander, stored in the cold store of the Opposite Party and destroyed in fire.  The impugned order has been made by the State Commission on a remand by this Commission in FA No.447 and 463 of 2009 vide order dated 30.07.2010.  The penultimate paragraph of the said order reads as under:

        “5.  It is pertinent to note that State Commission has not unsuited the complainants on any other ground viz., non maintainability of the complaint etc., although, a preliminary objection was raised by the respondent about the locus of the complainants to maintain the complaints before the consumer fora.  In our opinion this aspect along with all other aspects are required to be considered by the State Commission for which the complaints are required to be remitted back to the State Commission for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.”

-4-

               Although the afore extracted direction is unambiguous, yet, regretfully, the State Commission has chosen not to advert to the question of maintainability of the Complaints raised by the Opposite Party as a preliminary objection.

               Hence, the second round of Appeals.

               Vide order dated 15.09.2014, we had asked Learned Counsel appearing for the Complainant to address us on the aforenoted question, with reference to Section 21 (1) (d) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, particularly after its amendment w.e.f. 15.03.2003.

               Learned Counsel submits that having examined the said provision, he feels that perhaps after the said amendment the Complainant could not be treated as a “Consumer” falling within the ambit of the said Act.  He prays that the Complaints may be dismissed as not maintainable with liberty to the Complainants to approach an appropriate forum, except a Consumer Fora for redressal of its grievances against the Opposite Party.

               In view of the above, we allow the appeals and set aside the impugned order with liberty to the Complainants to take recourse to an  appropriate remedy as may be available to them in accordance with law.

-5-

Needless to add that as and when such remedy is resorted to, the question of condonation of delay shall be considered by the concerned court keeping in view the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works vs. PSG Industrial Institute – (1995) 3 SCC 583.

               The Appeals stand disposed of in the above terms.

               The amounts (as deposited by the Opposite Party in this Commission in terms of order dated 22.01.2014) shall be refunded to them forthwith along with interest accrued thereon, if any.  However, the statutory amount(s) deposited at the time of filing of the Appeals shall stand transferred to the Consumer Welfare Fund.