DR. B. C. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.       Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

2.       He has drawn attention to the impugned order dated 19-12-2017, passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred as ‘the State Commission’) in which, it has been stated that the counsel for the appellant was not present before the State Commission on that date. However, the presence of Sh. N.B. Sudharshan, Advocate has been marked in the said order.

3.       The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that on 19-12-2017, a proxy counsel was present for them before the State Commission. The observation made by the State Commission that none was present for the petitioner before them, was incorrect. The learned counsel has further drawn attention to copies of interim orders passed on the previous dates, saying that despite sending notice, the opposite parties had not made appearance before the State Commission. In the impugned order, the State Commission had observed that the petitioner had not taken adequate steps to serve the respondents in appeal before the State Commission. The learned counsel stated that there was no valid ground to dismiss the appeal on that account.

4.       After considering the averments made in the revision petition and the arguments led by the learned counsel, it is felt that it shall be in the interest of justice that the impugned order is set aside and fresh efforts are made to affect service of notice on the respondents. In case, it is not possible to affect service through normal modes, substituted service could be affected upon the respondents. With these observations, this revision petition is allowed, the impugned order dated 19-12-2017 is set aside and the State Commission is directed to proceed further in the matter in accordance with law. The petitioner has been directed to appear before the State Commission for further proceedings on 25-04-2018.