Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The District Forum had passed the order on 06.03.2008. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission dismissed the appeal on 22.09.2011. Thereafter an application for restoration was filed on 06.06.2012 which was also dismissed because of the latest authority passed by the Honle Supreme Court. This petition was filed before this Commission on 08.10.2012. 3. Although, there is a delay of 228 days in filing the application for restoration before the State Commission, yet the petitioner has mentioned the delay of 121 days. An application for condonation of delay has also been moved, wherein the delay was explained in paragraphs no. 3 and 4 which are reproduced here as under: . That the petitioners became late for filing the said appeal as they had no knowledge about the dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution, as set out in brief facts, mentioned in the accompanying revision petition, contents whereof be read as part and parcel of this application as are not repeated for the sake of brevity, so also moved an application for condonation of delay of 121 days in filing the said appeal before the Honle State Commission, Assam, which was pleased to allow the same after being fully satisfied with the explanation of the petitioners in respect of delay in filing of the same. 4. That the petitioners application for restoration of the said appeal by setting aside the order dated 22.09.2011 of State Commission, Assam, was dismissed vide order dated 03.08.2012 as power of review and restoration of application dismissed in default is exercisable only by Honle National Commission and this provision is not extended to the State Commission in view of the judgment of the Apex Court reported in (2011) 9 SCC 541 and in the circumstances, the petitioners are preferring the revision before this Honle Commission, as per law, and the same has been moved by the petitioners as soon as they were advised in law to file their revision before this Honle Commission for setting aside the order dated 22.09.2011 passed by State Commission, Assam, without any delay on their part 4. Before the State Commission the following plea was set up: hat it may be stated herein that the appellants/applicants engaged learned counsel to handle the matter before the Honle Commission and the Honle Commission may kindly appreciate that once the counsel had been appointed the appellants/applicants has to rely upon the said counsel for the protection of its interest. It is pertinent to state herein that due to the personal inconvenience of the then engaged learned counsel, the file had to be withdrawn from his office in the latter part of the year 2009 and the appellant/applicant, thereafter engaged another counsel, to appear for the appellant/applicant. However, due to the personal inconvenience of the said learned Advocate, the appellants/applicants had to withdraw from the said learned Advocate, all pending matters relating to the appellant/applicant before this Honle Commission and was transferred to the office of the present counsel on 23.01.2012. 5. The Counsel for the petitioner has tried in vain to draw our attention to the revision petition wherein some new grounds have been taken which we hereby ignore. 6. Counsel for the petitioner has cited the following authorities in order to buttress his case: 1. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs TATA Refractories Ltd. (2005) 12 SCC 442. 2. Land Acquisition Officer and Assistant Commissioner and Anothers vs Hemanagouda and Ors (2005) 12 SCC 443. 3. State of Karnataka vs Kuppuswamy Gownder AIR 1987 Supreme Court 1354. 4. Smt Lachi Tewari and Ors vs Director of Land Records and Ors. AIR 1984 Supreme Court 41. 5. Ram Chander Darakj vs Ganeshdas Rathi and Ors. AIR 1984 Supreme Court 42 7. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent has produced the Assam State Consumer Protection Rules, 1989. Paragraphs 8 (6) reads as follows: n the date of hearing or any other day to which hearing may be adjourned, it shall be obligatory for the parties or their authorised agents to appear before the State Commission. If appellant or his authorised agent fails to appear on such date, the State Commission may, in its discretion, either dismiss the appeal or decide it on the merit of the case. If respondent or his authorised agents fails to appear on such date, the State Commission shall proceed ex parte on merits of the case. 8. We have also heard the case on merit as well. Counsel for the petitioner has cited the authority of this Commission in Chairman, Board of Examinations, Madras vs Mohideen Abdul Kader II (1997) CPJ 49 (NC), which makes the complaint itself an arguable one. See also Maharishi Dayanand University vs Surjeet Kaur 2010 (11) SCC 159. 9. Counsel for the respondent has also pointed out that jurisdiction of this Commission under section 21 (b) of the limitation and the case should be decided within the ambit of 21 (b) of the CP Act, 1986. 10. It must be mentioned here that paramount consideration of this Commission is to find out the truth. It is to winnow the truth from falsehood. 11. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances and the fact that there is inordinate delay in filing the present revision petition, we condone the delay reluctantly, subject to payment of costs of Rs.25,000/- which will be deposited with the Consumer Welfare Fund established by the Central Government under section 12 (3) read with Rule 10 (a) of the C P Act, 1986 of the Central Excise Act 1944 within 15 days from today, failing which it will carry interest @ 9% per annum till its realisation. Learned Registrar of this Commission shall see compliance of the order under section 25 of the CP Act, 1986. The parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 1st February 2013 who will hear the case on merits after satisfying that the above said costs stand paid. Receipt be produced before the State Commission.