Learned Counsel for Respondent has filed vakalatnama.

          Heard Learned Counsel for the parties on application for condonation of delay.

          Learned Counsel for Appellant submitted that wrong date was noted by the Counsel and even after dismissal, no intimation was given by the Counsel to the Appellant and only in the Ist week of March, 2014, Appellant was orally informed by earlier Counsel that restoration application has also been dismissed.  But, on inspection of court file, Appellant came to know that no application for restoration was filed and in such circumstances, delay occurred in filing appeal which may be condoned.  Learned Counsel for Appellant, further, submitted that necessary action is being initiated against the earlier Counsel, hence, delay in filing may be condoned as complaint was dismissed in default.

          Learned Counsel for Respondent submitted that as there is no satisfactory explanation for condonation of delay, the application may be dismissed.

          As complaint has been dismissed in default and on that date Counsel for Respondent was also not present before State Commission, I deem it appropriate to condone delay in filing appeal as earlier Counsel for the Appellant did not intimate to the Appellant about dismissal of complaint and further furnished wrong information about dismissal of restoration application, though,  it was  not  filed.       In such circumstances, application for condonation of delay is allowed subject to depositing Rs. 5,000/- as cost with Legal Aid Account of the State Commission, within four weeks.

          Learned Counsel for Appellant submitted that as complaint has been dismissed in default, it may be restored.

Perusal of impugned order reveals that on that date, neither complainant nor opposite party was present and complaint was dismissed in default, I deem it appropriate to allow this complaint and restore the complaint.

Appeal filed by the Appellant is allowed and impugned order dated 19.11.2013 passed by the State Commission in Anil Poddar  Vs. Director/s, Niho Construction Ltd.,  is set aside and complaint is restored at its original No.

          Parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 13.10.2014.