Respondent No.1 failed to put in appearance on hearing dated 30.10.3013 despite of service of notice through registered A.D. post. He even failed to put in appearance on hearing dated 11.2.2014. Today also no one appears on behalf of respondent No.1 even on the second call. Respondent No.1 is, therefore, proceeded ex-parte. -2- 2. Notice to respondent No.2 could not be issued on account of failure of the petitioner to furnish the correct address. Earlier the notice of respondent No.2 for hearing dated 30.10.2013 was received back with the postal remarks, “No such person.” 3. On perusal of record I find that respondent No.2 being an insurance agent was implealded as the opposite party in the consumer complaint. No directions were issued against her by the District Forum. Therefore, so far as the instant proceedings are concerned, she is a proforma party. 4. This revision petition is directed against the order of the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (in short, “the State Commission”) dated 15.1.2013 in first appeal No.28 of 2011 preferred by the petitioner/appellant which reads as under: - “Cause list been repeatedly listed uploaded in the site at internet. Despite having been informed no one appeared on behalf of above mentioned parties. It appears that appellant is no interested in passing in appeal as such in the absence of the appellant, appeal is liable to be dismissed in default. ORDER Appeal is dismissed due to not appearance of appellant. Cost will be borne by both the parties. Copy of this order is sent to respective parties.” 5. On bare reading of the impugned order, it appears that notice of date of hearing was not sent to the petitioner and only on the basis of the uploading of the cause list for hearing dated 15.1.2013 the State Commission assumed that the petitioner has been served with the notice of the date of hearing. -3- Since there is no evidence regarding service of notice or the petitioner having knowledge of the date of hearing, the order of the State Commission dismissing the appeal in default cannot be sustained. 6. Revision petition is accordingly allowed, impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the State Commission with the direction to decide the appeal on merits after due notice to the parties. 7. Petitioner to appear before the State Commission on 14.10.2014. | 
