Both the parties as well as their counsels absent. Adv.Kane was appearing for Revision Petitioner and Adv.Jain used to appear for the Respondent. Today, both of them are absent.

We have perused the impugned order challenged in this Revision Petition passed in CC No.316/2008 by District Forum,Akola. An objection is taken by Original Opposite Party by filing an objection petition dated 1/4/2009 before the Forum challenging the maintainability of the complaint. On this Objection petition, the Forum passed a detailed order running into eight pages and held that complainant had kept certain amount in the deposit with the Opposite Party and since the deposit is not refunded by the Opposite party, the complainant is a consumer and unpaid deposit’s case comes within the definition of “consumer” as defined Under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. The Forum, therefore, turned down the objection filed by the Opposite Party and hence the Opposite Party filed this Revision Petition against the said order of the Forum.

On perusal of the impugned order, we are finding that dismissal of the objection petition filed by the original Opposite Party is just and proper. It is sustainable in law. There is no merit in the Revision Petition filed by the Revision Petitioner. We therefore, dismiss the Revision Petition.

Inform the parties accordingly.

Delivered on 11/04/2011.