Arguments heard. 2. This revision is directed against the order of the State Commission dated 26.3.2012 whereby the first appeal preferred by the petitioner -2- complainant against the dismissal of his complaint by the District Forum, was dismissed for non-prosecution. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is not sustainable because due to retirement of one of the Members of the State Commission the work of Circuit Bench was held up and therefore the petitioner was never informed about the date of hearing. The petitioner did not appear on the relevant date as he was under the impression that his counsel would be attending the proceedings as and when the appeal is listed before the State Commission. 4. Shri Ajit S. Bhasme, Advocate for the respondents controverts the above factual position projected by the counsel for the petitioner. He, however, in all fairness has conceded that the respondent has no objection if the impugned order is set aside and matter is remanded back to the State Commission for disposal of appeal on merits, subject to payment of cost for the delay caused. 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and the concession given at the Bar, revision petition is accepted, impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the State Commission for disposal on merits, subject to cost of Rs.10,000/- by the petitioner to the respondent- Board within two weeks. 6. Parties to appear before the State Commission on 12.12.2013. -3- 7. Revision petition is disposed of.