REKHA GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER As per the complaint, the petitioner had started Stone Mine and set up a big plant of Gitti Khadan and Thresher machine. The said Thresher Machine Plant was in the name of M/s Om Crushing Company of which the petitioner was the proprietor. On 31.03.2007, they took an electric connection from the respondent/ opposite party for the said plant. He alleges that the power supply was disconnected without any prior notice and there were no outstanding dues. The contention of the respondent was that the petitioner was informed that the power supply has been disconnected on the directions of the Forest Officer. He was further informed that they should obtain a no-objection from the Forest Department for restoration of the electric connection. Petitioner has stated that due to non-supply of electricity connection, the Thresher Machine has been closed and the petitioner has been suffering a loss of Rs.50,000/- per day. Hence he filed a complaint with the District Forum with the following prayer: Pass any order directing the opposite party to immediately restore the power supply of the Thresher machine Plant of the petitioner which was disconnected by opposite party; Pass any order directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.19,00,000/- as compensation for the loss suffered by the petitioner having illegally disconnected the power supply of his Thresher Machine Plant by the opposite party; Pass an order directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards the expenses required for filing the present complaint; Pass an order directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation towards mental, physical and financial harassment suffered for filing the present complaint; and Grant any other appropriate relief, which this Forum deems necessary and proper.
2. The respondent while denying the allegation has contended that the petitioner was not a consumer as he was using the electric connection for commercial purpose. On 26.12.2012 notice has been issued to the petitioner and other persons to bring NOC from the Forest Department, but the petitioner has failed to do so. They further stated that the electricity connection cannot be restored without the NOC from the Forest Department. The Forest Officer had filed an FIR against the petitioner for illegal mining, excavation and encroachment in the forest land. 3. The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nagpur vide its order dated 09.07.2015 had dismissed the complaint. 4. Aggrieved by the order the District Forum, petitioner/ complainant filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission vide its order dated 24.08.2016 had passed the following order: “None is present for the appellant. Perusal of the previous proceeding reflects that as the appellant is not appearing in this matter since, last two days, this matter was adjourned, till today by way of last chance with an observation that this appeal deserves to be dismissed for want of prosecution. As none for the appellant is present today also, this appeal be called at the end of the board for appropriate order. Later on: Matter is recalled at the end of the board. None is present for appellant. The appeal is dismissed in default”. 5. Hence, the present revision petition. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He has stated that the petitioner had not received any intimation from the counsel and was not aware that the counsel was not appearing. The State Commission should have brought the same to the notice of the petitioner. 7. I have gone through the order sheet of the FA NO.A 15/ 590 filed by the petitioner, which reads as under: “Dated 22.12.2015 Advocate Mr B S Deshmukh is present for the appellant. Adjourned for hearing before admission till 11.03.2016. 11.03.2016 None is present for the appellant. Hence adjourned till 07.07.2016. 07.07.2016 None for the appellant is present. Appellant is not present in this matter since, last date, i.e., 11.03.2016. As he is absent today also, this appeal deserved to be dismissed in default for want of prosecution. However, by way of last chance, it is adjourned till 24.08.2016”. 8. It is apparent from the above, that none had appeared on behalf of the appellant on 11th March and 7th July 2016 and even on 24.08.2016. There is no explanation as to why the advocate did not appear nor was any explanation given as to why the petitioner was not diligent in pursuing the matter. 9. In view of the discussion above, I find no jurisdictional error or material irregularity in the impugned order which may call for interference in exercise of powers under section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Revision petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. | 
