Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. One of the grounds on which the learned counsel for the appellant seeks to assail the impugned order, is that after holding that the complainant is not a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the State Commission ought not to have proceeded to examine the merit of the complaint and give a finding that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. He states that this action of the State Commission has adversely prejudiced the right of the appellant to pursue its ..2.. remedy before the appropriate forum/court. We are in full agreement with this submission and, therefore, while dismissing the present appeal we preserve the right of the appellant to pursue its remedy before the appropriate forum/court and in that case the appellant will be entitled to seek condonation of delay in filing the other proceedings before the appropriate forum/court in terms of the judgment delivered by the apex court in the case of Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute {(1995) 3 SCC 583}. The First Appeal stands disposed of.