This Revision Petition by the Greater Mohali Area Development Authority, Opposite Party in the Complaint, is directed against order dated 1.8.2013 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab (for short “the State Commission”) in FA/1511/2010.  By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the Appeal in default as, not only on date on which the Appeal was dismissed, the Petitioner herein had remained unrepresented on earlier two dates of hearing.

Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the cause of non-appearance before the State Commission was that the Counsel had noted a wrong date.  Although, had the absence been only on one occasion, in the normal course, we would have accepted the plea of the learned counsel, but as recorded in the impugned order, on earlier two dates of hearing also, no one had appeared for the Petitioner.  No explanation for non-appearance on those dates is forthcoming.  Besides, having regard to the fact that admittedly a sum of Rs.41,000/- was refunded by the Petitioner to the Complainant after a lapse of almost 11 years, we do not find any infirmity in the order made by the District Forum directing payment of interest at a very reasonable rate, i.e., 9% per annum.

Accordingly, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of our revisional jurisdiction.  Revision Petition is dismissed accordingly.