Despite service, no one appears for the Respondents.  Accordingly, we have heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner.

          Challenge in this Revision Petition by the Complainant is to order dated 9.5.2014 in FA No.338 of 2014 passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short ‘the State Commission’), whereby the Appeal by the Respondent (O.P. No.1) against order dated 10.02.2014 in OP case No.302 of 2013 by the District Forum-II, Delhi has been allowed, without even notice to the Complainant.

       Having perused the impugned order, we are of the opinion that the present Revision Petition has to be allowed on the short ground that the order is per se violative of principles of natural justice.  It is manifest from the impugned order that while disposing of the Appeal, the State Commission itself recorded that there was no need to hear the Respondents/Complainants.  It is well settled proposition of law that no order adversely affecting the rights of a party should be passed without notice to that party, which admittedly has not been done in the present case.

          Accordingly, the Revision Petition is allowed; the impugned order is set aside; and the Appeal is restored to the Board of the State Commission for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.

          Having regard to the fact that, despite service, Respondent No.1 has failed to respond to the notice issued by this Commission, the Petitioner would be entitled to costs of these proceedings, which are assessed at Rs.10,000/-.  The same shall be paid by the Respondents to the Petitioner before the State Commission.

       The State Commission shall take up the Appeal for further adjudication after due notice to the Respondents.