ORAL  ORDER

PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER

          The challenge in these revision petitions is to the orders dated 22.01.2016, passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as “the State Commission”) in First Appeals No. 81/2015 & 82/2015, vide which, the said appeals were ordered to be dismissed in default for the non-appearance of the present petitioners before the State Commission on the date of passing the order.

2.      It has been averred by the learned counsel for the petitioners in the Revision Petitions that on the date of hearing i.e. 22.01.2016, the learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant Suneet Pal Singh Aulakh was down with fever and also suffering from body ache and hence, he could not appear before the State Commission.  However, a day before the hearing, the said counsel had telephonically informed the learned counsel for the opposite party about his inability to appear before the State Commission.  In addition, the said counsel had requested another counsel to appear before the State Commission on his behalf, but the other counsel could not appear due to his prior commitments.

3.      The Revision Petitions are accompanied by an affidavit filed by Suneet Pal Singh Aulakh, Advocate in which, he has confirmed the facts stated above.  However, the learned counsel for the respondents contested the version of the petitioners by filing a reply to the Revision Petition in which, he stated that the said counsel Suneet Pal Singh Aulakh had misled this Commission by concealing the factual position.  In fact, the said counsel had appeared before the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court on that very day i.e. 22.01.2016 in CRR (Criminal Revision) No. 281/2016, titled as Manjeet Singh vs. Bhupinder Singh and the same was listed at serial no. 109 in the urgent list.  A copy of the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court in that case on 22.01.2016 has also been attached with the reply. 

4.      The matter has been heard today in the presence of the learned counsel for both the parties.  The learned counsel for the respondents stated that although the version given by him in his reply to the Revision Petition was correct and he had also filed an affidavit in support of the said version, he shall have no objection, if the matter is remitted to the State Commission for deciding the appeals on merits, subject to payment of some cost by the petitioners. 

5.      After examining the facts on record and the orders passed by the consumer fora below, it is considered, in the interest of justice, that the appeals are heard by the State Commission and decided on merits.  Accordingly, the orders passed by the State Commission are set aside, subject to payment of cost of
Rs. 10,000/- in each case to the respondent/complainant within a period of three weeks from today.

          The Revision Petitions are allowed and both the parties are directed to appear before the State Commission for further proceedings on 06.02.2017.