1.       This revision petition has been filed under Section 58 (1) (b) of the Act 2019 in challenge to the Order dated 27.09.2021 in Appeal No. 427 of 2010 of the State Commission Delhi arising out of Order dated 20.04.2010 of the District Commission in Complaint no.295 of 2008.

2.       None has appeared for the respondents. However, considering the nature of the impugned order and its narrow canvas which does not involve any complicated questions of law or fact, being a simple matter of dismissal in non-prosecution for the reason of non-appearance of the petitioner, the Bench deems it just and appropriate to decide the matter on the basis of the record after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and not to delay it any further.

3.       Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and have perused the record including inter alia the Order dated 20.04.2010 of the District Commission, the impugned Order dated 27.09.2021 of the State Commission and the memo. of petition.

4.       For appreciation of the facts the impugned Order dated 27.09.2021 may be quoted hereinbelow:

None has appeared for the parties on 27.07.2021, 17.08.2021 and even today.  This appeal pertains to years 2010. It appears that the appellant is not interested in pursuing the matter.

Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.

5.       As is obvious from the impugned Order that the matter was dismissed for non-prosecution.

6.       Learned counsel for the petitioner tried to elaborate upon the merits of the case as well as upon the circumstances which prevented the petitioners  and his counsel from appearing in the State Commission. Submission is that the petitioners used to take the update qua the matter their counsel. However, after the pandemic of Covid-19 previous counsel of the petitioners informed them that the matter was being adjourned en bloc with other matters.  The petitioners had to rely on their counsel as he had been handling the matter from the beginning.  However, when the petitioners requested their previous counsel to provide them copies of last few order sheets their previous counsel did not provide the same and kept on delaying the matter.  On this the petitioners sought help from their present counsel in the first week of October 2021 and then they came to know that their appeal was dismissed in non-prosecution by the State Commission vide the impugned Order dated 27.09.2021. The learned counsel has also tried to put forth the scary perspective which ensued in the wake of the deadly pandemic of Covid-19 which had taken massive toll of human beings on a large-scale.  It has been contended that if opportunity be provided to pursue the appeal on merits and of being heard there are fair prospects of this appeal being allowed by the State Commission or else the petitioners shall be left remediless and its cause shall suffer irreparably. 

7.       The Bench at this stage does not propose to delve into or touch upon the merits of the case but considering the nature of the dispute and the overall facts and circumstances in their totality, it is felt just and conscionable that reasonable and sufficient opportunity be further provided to the petitioners for adjudication of its appeal on merits as denying the same will leave them remediless. 

8.       As such, in the interest of justice, without making any observations on merits of the case  the Order dated 27.09.2021 of the State Commission is set aside and the appeal is restored to its original number before the State Commission. The petitioners are sternly advised to conduct its case in right earnest before the State Commission

9.       The matter is remanded back to the State Commission with the direction to decide the matter on its merits in accordance with law after providing adequate opportunity to both the parties. The parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 04.10.2023. In case the petitioners or their counsel do not appear on the date fixed the State Commission may proceed to decide the appeal on merits without waiting for the petitioner or his counsel any further.

10.     The principal onus of informing the respondent of this instant Order shall be of the petitioners. They shall do so within two weeks from today, without fail, and file proof thereof before the State Commission on or before the next date of hearing before it.  

However, if for whatever reason, the respondent does not appear before the State Commission on the date of hearing, the State Commission shall issue notice for requiring its presence in order to proceed in accordance with law in the matter, as directed by this Commission. The State Commission in such a situation may also require the petitioners to take adequate steps in order to facilitate service on the respondent.

          In case the respondent  has objections to the instant Order, it may file appropriate application before the State Commission, submitting that it will raise their objection before this Commission (National Commission). In such contingency, the State Commission shall not proceed further with the appeal for a period of three months. In the said period of three months, the respondent may file appropriate application before this Commission to raise its objections.

          If the respondent moves appropriate application in this Commission within the aforesaid period of three months, or before, further proceedings of the State Commission shall be subject to the orders that may be passed by this Commission on such application. If the respondent does not approach this Commission in the period of aforesaid three months (or before), the State Commission shall further proceed in the matter in accordance with law.

11.     The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to all parties in the petition and to their learned counsel. The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.