This appeal has been filed under section 19 read with section 21(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 challenging the impugned order dated 31.08.2016 passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’) in consumer complaint No. 234/2014.  It was stated in the said order as follows:-

“No one has come present on behalf of the complainants. On the previous date also no one had appeared on their behalf. The continuous non-appearance of the complainants shows that they are not interested in pursuing this complaint and the same is, therefore, dismissed in default.”

2.       Notice of the appeal was sent to the respondents.  The respondent No. 1 & 2 put in appearance through counsel and were heard.  The respondent No. 3 has been ordered to be proceeded exparte in proceedings before the State Commission.

3.       The learned counsel for the complainants submitted that the State Commission had heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties on 27.05.2016 and reserved the order in the case.  However, vide order passed on 30.05.2016, the State Commission decided to issue a fresh notice to OP-3, returnable on 26.07.2016.  On that date, the counsel for both the parties, were present before the State Commission.  The OP-3 was ordered to be proceeded against exparte and the case was fixed for hearing on 05.08.2016.  On the said date, the quorum was not complete and hence, the case was fixed for arguments on 31.08.2016.  On that date, the counsel for the complainant was busy with some other cases in the Punjab & Haryana High Court, but still was able to reach the State Commission at 12:45 PM, but the case had been dismissed by that time.  The learned counsel submitted that the appeal should be accepted and the order of the State Commission be set aside and a direction be given to them to hear their arguments and decide the complaint on merits.

4.       The learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 & 2 stated, however, that the order passed by the State Commission was in accordance with law and should be upheld. 

5.       An examination of the facts and circumstances on record indicates that the State Commission heard the arguments of the counsel for the appellant/complainant and respondent No. 1 & 2 on 27.05.2016 and reserved the matter for pronouncement of orders.  However, later on, they decided to issue notice to OP-3 and hence, the case was re-listed for arguments.  The version given by the appellant/complainant that the counsel had reached the office of the Commission at 12:45 PM has not been controverted by the other party. 

6.         It appears, therefore, wholly unjustified if the appellant/complainant is deprived of an opportunity to present their arguments before the State Commission.  This appeal is, therefore, accepted in the interest of justice and the impugned order passed by the State Commission is set aside.  The State Commission shall hear the learned counsel for both the sides and decide the complaint on merits.  Both the parties have been directed to appear before the State Commission for further proceedings on 14.09.2017.