Petitioner was proceeded ex-parte before the District Forum as it did not appear before the District Forum in spite of having been served. In the Grounds of Revision, the Petitioner has stated that the notice of the original complaint was not served on the petitioners but the notices of the complaint were wrongly dispatched to the officials of Telecommunications Department i.e. General Manager, Divisional -2- Manager and Accounts Officer at Visakhapatnam and notices were forwarded to Petitioner related to Consumer Dispute No. 1439 of 2002 pertaining to Sh. D.S.V.V.N. Raju with which the Petitioner had no connection whatsoever. If that be so, then the case needs to be remanded back to the District Forum to decide it afresh in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to put forth its defence. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that it may not be necessary to remit the case back to the District Forum as the dispute can be resolved here only as the complaint would not be maintainable as the respondent had purchased the excavator for a commercial purpose. Counsel for the petitioner relies upon a judgment of three Members’ Bench of this Commission in “Sanjay D. Ghodawat vs. R.R.B. Energy Ltd. IV (2010) CPJ 178 (NC)”in which it is held that the complaint, on behalf of a person who purchases the goods or hires the service for a commercial purpose with a warranty, would not be maintainable. -3- Counsel for the respondent after taking instructions seeks permission to withdraw the complaint with liberty to seek appropriate relief from any other court of competent jurisdiction. The prayer made by the counsel for the respondent is allowed. Complaint is permitted to be withdrawn reserving liberty with the respondent to seek appropriate relief from any other court of competent jurisdiction. Complaint is ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn as a consequence thereof the revision petition has become infructous. In case the petitioner files a suit within four weeks from today, then the trial court shall consider the application for condonation of delay for the time spent before the consumer fora in terms of the observations made by the Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works vs.PSG Industrial Institute – (1995) 3 SCC 583”. | 
