ORDER

This appeal has been filed under section 19 of the Act 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 03.10.2018 of the State Commission in complaint no.07 of 2013.

We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as for the respondents no.1 to no.3 and the respondent no.6. No one appears for the respondents no.4 and no.5.

We have also perused the material on record including inter alia the State Commission’s impugned Order dated 03.10.2018 and the memorandum of appeal.

2. The appeal has been filed with self-admitted delay of 60 days.

However, in the interest of justice, and considering the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay, to provide fair opportunity to the appellant, to decide the matter on merit rather than to dismiss it on the threshold of limitation, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

3. The matter relates to alleged deficiency in service in construction work of a jewellery showroom building. The State Commission has dismissed the complaint holding that the complainant was not ‘consumer’ under the Act 1986 and further that on merit too no deficiency in service is made out.

4. In so far as the question whether or not the complainant