This revision is directed against the order of the Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal (in short, he State Commission dated 23.7.2013 passed in first appeal No.989/2011 whereby the State Commission dismissed the appeal of the petitioner filed against the order of the concerned District Forum for non-prosecution. Shorn off unnecessary details the facts relevant for the disposal of this revision petition are that respondents No. 2 & 3, namely, Dr. Ved Prakash Patel and Amardeep Patel filed consumer complaint No.17/2010 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shahdol, M.P. alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner, M/s Tata Motors Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent-1) and Shri Sanjay Udania, Authorised Representative of the petitioner Company in respect of the supply of Tata Indica Car through agency of the petitioner which was found to be defective. The consumer complaint was contested by the petitioner. The District Forum, however, on consideration of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced, allowed the complaint and directed thus: 1. espondent No.2 and 3 shall jointly or severally pay a sum of Rs.24,545/- for the registration and Rs.11,280/- regarding excess amount alongwith interest @ 9% w.e.f. 14.10.2009 till realization. 2. Respondent No.2 and 3 should pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- as amount of compensation within thirty days, failing which 9% interest per annum shall be payable after the above date. 3. Fuel meter of the vehicle of the applicants should be repaired or replaced by the respondent No.2 and 3 within 30 days from today. 4. Respondents themselves bear the cost of this application and respondent No.2 and 3 shall pay Rs.5,000/- as cost to the applicants. Being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum, the petitioner preferred an appeal. The appeal, however, was dismissed for non-prosecution vide the impugned order, which reads as under: one was present for the appellant on 18.6.2012, 9.10.2012 and 18.1.2013 as well. This shows that the appellant is not interested in pursuing this appeal. The appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the absence of the petitioner/appellant before the State Commission on the relevant date of hearing was unintentional and this happened because the counsel engaged by the petitioner to represent him before the State Commission stopped putting in appear before the State Commission. It is contended that if the impugned order is not set aside and the petitioner is not permitted to pursue his appeal on merits, the petitioner would suffer grave injustice and loss. We do not find merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. From the record it is evident that petitioner is a service provider and he has been held to be guilty of deficiency in service and has been ordered to pay to the respondent/complainant a sum of Rs.24,545/- plus Rs.11,280/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. w.e.f. 14th October, 2009. Petitioner instead of honouring the order of the District Forum preferred to file an appeal. The petitioner, however, instead of diligently pursuing the appeal failed to put in appearance before the State Commission on hearings dated 18.6.2012, 9.10.2012, 18.1.2013 and 23.7.2013 when the State Commission instead of further adjourning the matter dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. We do not find any merit in the above contention. Rule 8 of Madhya Pradesh Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 provides for the procedure to be followed by the State Commission for hearing appeal. Clause 6 of Rule 8 of the abovementioned Rules provides that if the appellant or his authorized agent fails to appear on the date of hearing the State Commission may in its discretion either dismiss the appeal or decide it on merit. In the instant case the State Commission after showing indulgence to adjourn the matter on three occasions ultimately took recourse to the dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner in default. The said dismissal obviously is in accordance with the procedure provided in Madhya Pradesh Consumer Protection Rules, 1987. Therefore, it cannot be termed as either illegal or without jurisdiction. The petitioner has tried to explain that he was prevented from putting in appearance because of the conduct of his counsel who did not appear before the State Commission on hearings dated 18.6.2012, 9.10.2012, 18.1.2013 and 23.7.2013. We are not inclined to accept this explanation, particularly for the reason that the counsel for the petitioner has not been able to clarify whether or not the petitioner has taken any action against the Advocate for not appearing on four consecutive dates of hearing. Otherwise also from the record it is clear that the petitioner failed to appear before the State Commission on four dates of hearing during the period from 18.6.2012 to 23.7.2013. It is highly improbably that a vigilant litigant would keep on sleeping over the matter for a period of more than one year without taking care to find out the fate of his appeal after having lost the case before the District Forum. Thus, we do not find merit in the explanation given for the non-appearance. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the opinion that the State Commission was justified in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution. It is pertinent to note that in this revision petition the amount involved is compensation to the tune of Rs.35,825/- with 9% interest p.a. w.e.f. 14th October, 2009. The order of the District Forum fixing the liability of the petitioner was passed on 24th February, 2011. Since then two and a half years have gone by but the petitioner who is a service provider running a showroom of Tata vehicles has been able to avoid the payment of compensation in terms of the orders of the District Forum to the respondent by using every trick in the trade. If such revision petitions are allowed, in our view, it would defeat the object of expeditious and inexpensive remedy to the aggrieved consumer. Therefore also, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. In view of the discussion above, revision petition is, therefore, dismissed with litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-.