Complainant/Appellant filed Complaint No.196/2009 which was dismissed in default of appearance by the appellant on 8.2.2011.  Complaint was dismissed in the presence of the counsel for the respondent.  Appellant, instead of filing the appeal before this Commission seeking setting aside of the order of

2

the State Commission, filed the second complaint No.11/131 was dismissed by the impugned order in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court that second complaint on the same cause of action was not maintainable.   Appellant has filed this appeal against the order dismissing the second complaint as well as the original complaint along with application to condone the delay of 545 days in filing the appeal. 

        We agree with the State Commission that the second complaint on the same cause of action was not maintainable.  Order of the State Commission to this extent is upheld.

        To provide an opportunity to the appellant to contest his case, in the interests of justice, the delay of 545 days in filing the appeal against the order of dated 8.2.2011 dismissing the first complaint No.196/2009 is condoned.

        This delay is being condoned as the appellant was pursuing wrong remedy by filing the second complaint instead of seeking setting aside of the order of the State Commission dismissing the complaint in default.

        Respondent is now represented before us.  Order dated 8.2.2011 dismissing the complaint No.196/2009 in default of appearance is set aside and the case is remitted back to the State Commission to decide the Complaint No.196/2009 on merits in accordance with law.

3

Parties, through counsel, are directed to appear before the State Commission on 9.5.2013.

        All contentions are left open.