Heard learned counsel for the appellant. Appellant has filed this appeal against impugned order dated 06-02-2013 passed by learned State Commission in complaint no. 61/2008 – M/s Servo Lube Distributors vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., by which complaint was dismissed in default along with application for condonation of delay of 10 months. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused record. 3. Appellant along with appeal filed application for condonation of delay of 10 months but no reasons have been mentioned in the application but has mentioned reasons for condonation of delay in the affidavit filed in support of the application. In this affidavit appellant admitted that his counsel received copy of the order dated 05-03-2013 but did not inform to the appellant. Later on, appellant obtained certified copy of the order and came to know that complaint has been dismissed in default and moved review application. This too was dismissed by order dated 06-12-2013 as State Commission has no power to review its own order and later on, filed this appeal on 13th January, 2014. Again it took one month after this order. It was obligatory on the part of the appellant to file appeal against the order dated 06-02-2013 within period of one month after receiving copy of the order. As he received copy of the order dated 05-03-2013, appellant should have filed appeal before 5th April, 2013. According to learned counsel for the appellant, copy of the order was not delivered by counsel for the appellant appearing before State Commission so neither review petition could be made in the time nor appeal could be filed in time. As complaint has been dismissed in default after hearing arguments, we deem it appropriate to allow the application for condonation of delay and condone delay subject to depositing Rs.2,000/- as cost with the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission. Consequently, application for condonation of delay is allowed subject to depositing Rs.2,000/- with Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in this complaint arguments were heard on 21-04-2011 and matter was kept reserved for judgment but later on by order dated 17-07-2011 complaint was again fixed for re-hearing and ultimately it was dismissed in default on 06-02-2013 on the basis of uploading cause list on website. Many times we have observed that cases should not be dismissed on the basis of uploading cause list on the website and it was obligatory on the part of the State Commission to proceed only after intimation to the party and State Commission should not have proceeded on the basis of uploading cause list on the website, which is not updated as per copy taken from website on 06-12-2013, in which this matter has been shown as reserved for judgment, whereas it had already been dismissed on 06-02-2013. 5. As arguments had already been heard on 21-04-2011 and complaint was kept reserved for judgment, it is surprising that after fixing the case for re-hearing on 13-07-2013 complaint was dismissed in default. 6. As arguments were already heard, learned State Commission should have passed judgment and should not have dismissed the complaint in default and this order is liable to be set aside. 7. Consequently, appeal field by the appellant is allowed and impugned order dated 06-02-2013 passed by learned State Commission in complaint no. 61/2088 – M/s Servo Lube Distributors vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. is set aside and complaint is remanded back to learned State Commission to dispose of after giving an opportunity of being heard to both the parties. 8. Appellant is directed to appear before State Commission on 28-03-3014. | 
