1. Heard learned counsel for both sides. 2. MA/391/2024 has been filed seeking restoration of First Appeal No. 1802/2017, which was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 26.02.2024. Delay in filing the MA is condoned after considering the reasons stated in the IA/8239/2024. MA has been strongly opposed by the respondent stating that the entire blame for non-appearance has been put by the appellant on the previous counsel. In the said MA following reasons have been narrated for the non-appearance: “3. It is submitted that the captioned matter was listed before this Hon'ble Commission on 26.02.2024, whereby this Hon'ble Commission dismissed present Appeal on the ground for want of prosecution. It is submitted that the reason for non-appearance of the Appellant is that in the year of 2020, the Appellant expired on 17.05.2020 due to the Covid-19. It is pertinent to mention here that the Appellant has left behind his parents, wife and one daughter as Legal heirs and whenever the father of the Appellant asked the earlier counsel regarding the status of the present First Appeal, the earlier counsel used to inform them that the present Appeal is pending before this Hon'ble Commission. A true copy of Order dated 26.02.2024 passed by this Hon'ble Commission has been annexed herewith and marked as Annexure A-1. 4. It is further submitted that the Legal Heirs of the Appellant were under the impression that the previous counsel, engaged by the Appellant, was taking care of the present Appeal. However, the Applicants/Legal Heirs of the Appellant were shocked to know that the previous counsel for the Appellant neither appeared on previous dates before this Hon'ble Commission nor informed the Legal Heirs of the Appellant due to the reason best known to him. 5. The non-appearance of the Appellant as well as the previous counsel is neither deliberate nor intentional but due to aforementioned reasons which was beyond the control of the Applicants. Therefore, the Applicant vide present application seeking restoration of the present Appeal.” 3. We have carefully gone through the reasons for non-appearance stated in the said MA as well as those adduced by the learned counsels for the applicant/ appellant during the course of hearing. It is seen that it is not only on 26.02.2024 that the appellant was unrepresented, even on earlier dates that is on 17.08.2023, 22.11.2022 and also the appellant was unrepresented and on 12.05.2023, appellant was represented through a proxy counsel only. 4. After careful consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the case and rival contentions of both sides, we do not find reasons for non-appearance/ grounds for restoration stated in the MA and those adduced during the course of hearing sufficient. Hence the MA is dismissed. 5. Pending other IAs, if any, also stand disposed off. | 
