JUDGMENT JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) This appeal is directed against the order of the State Commission dated 01.08.2019 whereby the complaint preferred by the appellant was dismissed for want of prosecution as no one having appeared for the complainant/appellant on that date as well as on two other previous dates. 2. An additional affidavit has been filed by the complainant/appellant disclosing therein the reasons on account of which he could not appear before the State Commission. The said additional affidavit to the extent it is relevant reads as under: “2. That my Aunty Smt. Sunita Uppal and me had filed the consumer complaints being CC No.1191/2015 belonging to me as Vivek Viswanathan Vs. Unitech Ltd. and CC No.1192/2015 belonging to my Aunty namely Smt. Sunita Uppal Vs. M/s. Unitech Ltd. Both matters were represented by our common lawyer Mr. Mukul Aggarwal and both matters were being listed one after the other and till 23.05.2018 the date when proxy counsel of Mr. Mukul Aggarwal had appeared and the matters were adjourned for 11.09.2018 on 11.09.2018 the matter got listed in different courts and the matters were re-notified in my case for 06.03.2019 and 11.04.2019 in the case of Smt. Sunita Uppal in Court No.02. 3. That my case was transferred to Court No.01 and was listed for 06.03.2019 and Smt. Sunita Uppal was listed for 11.04.2018 as CC No.1192/2015 remained in Court No.02 with the result and as per last information I appeared on 11.04.2019. I did not know that both were relisted for different dates. I remained under the belief that both cases would be listed and have been adjourned for 11.04.2019. That my counsel was not available & I attended the proceeding but reached late and was informed that case has been adjourned to 31.05.2019. I being unaware of the procedure remained under the belief that his case also been adjourned for 07.02.2020 along with case of my Aunty (Sunita Uppal) in CC No.1192/2015. 4. It was due to lack of proper information and my knowledge I could not attend the proceedings in Court No.01 on 06.03.2019 before the State Commission being unaware of the personal knowledge to enquire from registry why my name is not being shown in the batch of cases against Unitech Ltd. It was only when I received the order from the Court No.01, I came to know that my case No.CC/1191/2015 had been dismissed for nonappearance. 5. It was my bonafide mistake that I neither made an enquiry from the registry nor informed my counsel to make enquiry as I was under the belief that my case is going along with the case of my aunty in Bench No.02 Being unaware of the facts I am faced with this ex-parte order which I have being pursuing and want to get the same restored to be heard on its merits or along with the case of my Aunty in CC No.1192/2015 listed for hearing on 07.02.2020 before Bench No.02 of the Commission. 6. The mistake on my part is bonafide due to lack of information of different dates when I could not attend. I never received any court notice or information direct or indirect by which I could know that my case has been separated and listed in another Bench. I appeared on 11.04.2019 and I took my self as part of the same batch of cases against the Unitech where we were asked to file and upload our claim on the portal of the Supreme Court. My name was not appearing on the list and I thought that Commission may have missed out my name. 7. I inadvertently did not realize that my case had been taken up by Bench No.1 on 06.03.2019 as a few files had been transferred to Bench No.02 but I remained under the belief that my case had been adjourned time and again and was now fixed for 07.02.2020. After that I received the ex-parte order after which I approached the registry to take the copies of earlier orders and proceedings. I have been advised that State Commission cannot restore the case without direction of this Commission in appeal. Hence this appeal is with a request to restore the matter back to the State Commission.” 3. It would thus be seen that two Consumer Complaints had been filed through the same advocate one by the appellant and another by his aunt Smt. Sunita Uppal. The affidavit further shows that initially both the matters were being listed together. Mr. Mahna submits that till 11.09.2018 both the matters were listed before the same Bench. On that date, this matter was adjourned to 06.03.2019 whereas the complaint filed by the appellant’s aunt was adjourned to 11.04.2019. He further submits that the appellant who was present in the Court on 11.09.2018 thought that this matter has also been adjourned to 11.04.2019 and that is why he didn’t appear on 06.03.2019. When he appeared on 11.04.2019 in the belief that his matter has also listed on that date, the matter was adjourned to 31.05.2019. In fact, only the complaint filed by his aunt was adjourned to 31.05.2019. The complaint filed by the appellant had been adjourned on 06.03.2019 to 01.08.2019 when it came to be dismissed for want of prosecution. 4. From the additional affidavit, I am satisfied that the absence of the complainant/appellant before the State Commission was not deliberate or contumacious. The impugned order is therefore set aside and the Consumer Complaint is restored to the file of the State Commission. The parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 07.02.2020. On that date, the State Commission shall proceed with the Consumer Complaint, in accordance with law. Order Dasti. | 
