JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.       Learned counsel for the respondents has tendered his Vakalatnama which is taken on record.

2.       This revision petition is directed against the following order of the State Commission, Maharashtra dated 03-08-2016:

          “None present for complainant. Advocate Shri Sanjay Gaikwad is present for opponent No.1. He has filed vakalatnama. It is taken on record. Advocate Shri G. N. Shenoy is present for opponent No.2. Record shows that complainant is not attending this consumer complaint. Consumer complaint is filed on 28-08-2015. It is not yet admitted. It is not desirable to prolong the complaint when complainant is not at all interested to make out the case for admission. Hence, consumer complaint is dismissed in default. Parties to bear their own costs.”

3.       Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that absence of the complainant on the relevant date of hearing was unintentional. The complainant was under the impression that his counsel shall appear on the date of hearing. However, the counsel being pregnant could not appear before the State Commission on 03-08-2016. Thus, he presses for setting aside of the impugned order and remand of the matter back to the State Commission to decide the complaint on merits. Learned counsel for the respondents on the contrary has strongly opposed the prayer.

4.       In view of the reasons narrated above it is clear that the counsel for the complainant could not appear because of her physical state and the complainant was not even aware of this situation. Therefore, the complainant cannot be made to suffer for the aforesaid unavoidable reason. Thus, in the interest of justice, I allow the appeal, set aside the order of the State Commission and refer the matter back to the State Commission for deciding the complaint on merits after giving due opportunity to the parties.

          Parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on          12-12-2016.