PER JUSTICE R.C. JAIN (ORAL) Aggrieved by the orders dated 25th of January, 2010 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (for short the State Commission) in FA Nos. 103 of 2009 and 104 of 2009, the original opposite party-M/s Swift Agro Chemicals & Nutrients Pvt. Ltd. have filed the present proceedings purportedly under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The impugned orders passed by the State Commission are common and rather short and we may like to reproduce the same, which read as under :- “Ld. Counsel for the appellant is absent. Perused the order dated 16.11.2009. Ld. Counsel for the respondent states that the order dated 16.11.2009 is not complied with and the amounts as directed have not been deposited. After 16.11.2009 matter appeared on 30.11.2009. Advocate for the appellant was absent. One Mr. Abhay Jadhav-Advocate who was appearing for the Appellant on that date submitted that Mr. Rajebhosale-counsel had come from Sangli and he was ready with the matter. Under these circumstances, in the interest of justice, matter was adjourned subject to cost of Rs.2000/-. Said cost has also not been deposited. That shows that appellant is not interested in prosecuting the matter. He has filed the matter in order to protract and to avoid the payments. Hence the order. ORDER Appeal stands dismissed for non prosecution. Stay stands vacated. Complainant is at liberty to prosecute execution.” 2. We find that aggrieved by the orders dated 24.12.2008 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangli in Consumer Complaint Nos. 203 of 2006 and 205 of 2006 respectively, thereby allowing the complaints of the complainants, the petitioner-opposite party filed appeals before the State Commission but it appears that the petitioner-opposite party or their counsel was not diligent enough to pursue the appeals before the State Commission despite opportunities granted for the purpose even subject to certain cost. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner-opposite party, and counsel representing the respondents-complainants and have considered their submissions. The orders passed by the District Forum have far reaching consequence, inasmuch as it has awarded a compensation of around Rs.19.00 Lakhs in each case. The matter has not been heard by the State Commission on merits. Although the orders passed by the State Commission, in the circumstances, cannot be said to be illegal or irregular but the interest of justice demands that the appeals filed by the petitioner-opposite party should be answered on merit. We are of the view that it would be expedient in the interest of justice to afford an opportunity to the petitioner-opposite party to have their say in the matter. 4. In view of the above, we partly allow the revision petitions and set aside the impugned orders, subject to cost of Rs.20,000/- in each case payable to the complainants. The parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 11.08.2011 for directions and thereafter for hearing the appeals on merit and deciding the same as expeditiously as it may be practicable for the State Commission to do so. The amount of Rs.5.00 Lakhs deposited by the petitioner-opposite party in each case shall be remitted to the concerned District Forum, with a direction that the amount shall be placed in term deposit of a Nationalized bank so that it can earn some interest and will abide by the final outcome of the appeal. | 
