Claim filed by the petitioner was repudiated by the insurance company on the ground of suppression of facts.  The District Forum dismissed the complaint for non-prosecution on 27.7.2009 as neither the petitioner nor her counsel were present in spite of the fact that the date had been fixed in the presence of the petitioner.  The petitioner thereafter filed an appeal before the State Commission on 7.10.2009.  State Commission has dismissed the appeal as barred by time.

          We agree with the view taken by the State Commission.  The date 27.7.2009 had been fixed in the presence of the petitioner.  As the petitioner was not present, the complaint was dismissed for non-prosecution.  Petitioner did not take any steps to find out as to what happened or transpired on the date fixed.  In the grounds of Revision Petition, she has simply stated that she came to know about the dismissal of the complaint for non-prosecution on 6.10.2009 and soon thereafter filed an appeal on 7.10.2009.  Source from which the petitioner got the knowledge of the dismissal of the complaint has not been mentioned.  No explanation is forthcoming as to why the petitioner was not present on 27.7.2009 before the District Forum and as to why she did not take any steps to find out as to what happened to the complaint which was listed for hearing on 27.7.2009.    Dismissed.