1.      Counsel for the parties present.  In view of the Supreme Court authority reported in “HUDA Versus Sunita” (2005) 2 Supreme Court Cases 479, it is held that the complainants/respondents- Rajinder Kaur (in R.P. 2440/2012), Baltej Singh Dhillon (in RP/2518/2012), Rachhpal Kaur (in R.P. 2602/2012), Kanwarjyot Singh (in RP/2604/2012) and  Dr. Gurdev Singh Preet (in RP/3959/2012) are not the consumers. 

2.      Our attention was also invited towards the authority reported in “PUDA (NOW GLADA) VERSUS NARINDER SINGH NANDA” in Civil Appeal Nos. 8314-8315 of 2010 wherein the following Civil Appeal Nos.

Civil Appeal No. 6087 of 2013

Civil Appeal No. 8903 of 2011

Civil Appeal No. 8904 of 2011

Civil Appeal No. 8905 of 2011

Civil Appeal No. 5718 of 2008

Civil Appeal No. 5682 of 2008

         Civil Appeal No. 5700-5701 of 2009

        Civil Appeal No. 5702-5703 of 2009

       Civil Appeal No. 5706-5707 of 2009

        Civil Appeal No. 5710-5711 of 2009

        Civil Appeal No. 5713-5714 of 2009

       Civil Appeal No. 2641-2642 of 2014

(Arising out of SLP ( c) No. 24001-24002 of 2009

were decided on 20.02.2014 by the Apex Court wherein the following order was passed:-

                             “All these appeals are disposed of in terms of the order passed by this Court in HUDA Vs. Sunita 2005 (2) SCC 479 with the liberty to the respondents to approach the appropriate forum.”

3.      Consequently, we accept all the above 5 Revision Petitions.  We set aside the orders passed by the Fora below and give liberty to all the five complainants/respondents, referred above, to get redressal of their grievances in an appropriate Forum.  So far as the question of limitation is concerned, they can seek help from the authority reported in  Laxmi Engineering Works vs. PSG Industrial Institute – (1995) 3 SCC 583.

4.      All the five Revision Petitions stand disposed of.