1.          Counsel for the parties present. Arguments on application for condonation of delay of this revision petition heard.  The appeal was dismissed in default by the State Commission on 12.10.2011. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application for restoration on 15.10.2011, which remained pending with the State Commission and subsequently it was dismissed on 10.02.2012 because as per the Apex Court’s authority which lays down that the State Commission has no power to review its own order. Consequently, there is delay of 84 days in filing this revision petition. 

2.      It has also transpired that as a matter of fact this revision petition was filed on 10.05.2012 i.e. after 3 months when the State Commission had dismissed the application for restoration.

3.      We are not satisfied with the explanation given by the petitioner. When his application for restoration was dismissed, he should have moved this Commission immediately without waiting for 90 days, which apply to the Original order dated 12.10.2011.  This shows negligence and inaction on the part of the petitioner.  However, in the interest of justice, we condone the delay subject to the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, which will be deposited with the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission.

4.      Now arguments on merits also heard.  The impugned order passed by the State Commission is reproduced as follows:-

“1.  Adv. Shri U.V. Jawalikar present for applicant.  This application is filed for restoration of appeal No. 519/2010 which was dismissed in default on 12.10.2011.

2.   In view of the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of “Rajeev Hitendra Pathak and others –Vs- Achyut Kashinath Karekar and another” – IV(2011) CPJ 35 (State Commission)= 2011(5) All M.R. 951(State Commission)  the Commission has not empowerment to restore the matter.  The application for restoration of appeal stands dismissed and disposed of, accordingly.  No order as to cost.”

5.          Counsel for the petitioner submits that he was to appear before the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No. 447/2011 hence he could not appear before the State Commission.

6.      In the interest of justice, we set aside the order passed by the learned State Commission and restore the Appeal pending before the State Commission subject to payment of Rs. 5,000/- as cost, which will be paid to the respondent No. 2 only because respondent No.1 did not appear despite service.

7.          Parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 01.11.2012.  State Commission is directed to hear all the three parties, after satisfaction that the above said costs stand paid and decide the case on merits.

8.      This revision petition stands disposed of.