JUDGMENT

S. Saghir Ahmad, J.-This appeal was disposed of by us by our judgment dated 12th August, 1999.

2. Mr. R.N. Keswani, appearing on behalf of the appellant, has filed the instant Application stating that he was the only counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant on 12.8.1998, but since he was busy in some other Court when the matter was taken up by us, he could not come and argue the appeal. He also stated that the counsel who was deputed to make a mention that he (Mr. R.N. Keswani) was busy in some other Court was not entitled to argue the appeal.

3. The appeal was heard by us in detail and elaborate arguments were made on behalf of the appellant also, but having regard to the fact that Mr. Keswani was the only counsel in the appeal and he has stated that the other counsel was not entitled to argue the appeal, we have heard Mr. Keswani as also Mr. S.P. Mithal.

4. The main reliance on behalf of the appellant has been placed on the decision of this Court in Laxmi Engineering Works v. P.S.G. Industrial Institute1 in support of the contention that the appellant was a "consumer" within the meaning of the definition set out in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The definition was co