Although, on the direction of the office, the Revision Petition filed by the complainant society has been treated as First Appeal but having
-2- regard to the nature of the order dated 19.02.2013 passed by the State Commission, we feel that the Revision Petition, initially filed, was maintainable. In that view of the matter, there was hardly any delay in filing the Revision Petition. Let the appeal be retreated as a Revision Petition. This Revision Petition is directed against order dated 19.02.2013 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (for short, “the State Commission”) in complaint C-324/02, dismissing the complaint in default as the complainant had remained unrepresented on the date when the impugned order was passed as also on 22.01.2012. Despite service of notice on DDA, the opposite party, no one has put in appearance on their behalf. Accordingly, we have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that on both occasions, he was slightly late on account of his age and poor health and therefore, proper representation on behalf of the complainant could not be made. We are satisfied with the explanation furnished by
-3- learned counsel for the complainant. Accordingly, in the absence of any resistant to the Revision Petition, we set aside order dated 19.02.2013 and restore the aforesaid complaint on the board of the State Commission for disposal of merits, after due notice to the parties. Revision Petition stands disposed of accordingly. | 
