Shri S.C. Pahwa, has filed his authority letter, which is taken on record. 2. This revision is directed against the order dated 17.9.2013 of the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi in first appeal No.229/2010 which reads thus: - A-229/10 This appeal comes up before us for hearing now in the revised list. Despite repeated calls, neither the appellant nor his counsel present. Sh. S.C. Pahwa, AR & son of the respondent present. Appeal dismissed in appellant default. FDR, if any deposited, be released forthwith. 3. Learned Shri, Piyush Singhal, Advocate on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner has to approach this Commission for the reason that the Foras below have no power to review their own order. It is submitted that the absence of the petitioner or his counsel on hearing dated 17.9.2013 was unintentional. The petitioner was under the impression that his counsel would be appearing and the counsel could not appear because of inadvertent error in not recording the adjourned date of hearing in the counsel diary. 4. It is further submitted that it is well settled that a litigant should not be penalized for the fault of his counsel and if the impugned order is not set aside, it would cause grave injustice to the petitioner. 5. Authorised Representative of the respondent though disputes the above submission, has fairly conceded that he has no objection if the impugned order is set aside, subject to payment of cost for the delay caused. 6. In view of the above and the concession given at the Bar, we allow the revision petition, subject to cost of Rs.10,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent for the delay caused. As a consequence, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the State Commission for disposal on merit. 7. Parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 23.4.2014. 8. Since the matter has already been delayed sufficiently, we request the State Commission to dispose of the appeal within three months.