1.       Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners – opposite parties, and perused the material on record.

2.       Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed on record the proof of service of notice upon the respondent. None present for the respondent - complainant today.

3.       This revision petition has been filed against the Order dated 17.11.2015 of the State Commission, whereby the State Commission dismissed the first appeal before it for non-prosecution:

Order No. 16 Dated : 17.11.2015

Neither of parties appear on call.  On the previous four consecutive dates neither of them also appeared.

So, the appeal stands dismissed for non-prosecution.

Records received from the District Forum be sent back forthwith.

4.         The petitioners have filed a misc. application no. 215 of 2016 before the State Commission for restoration of its Order dated 17.11.2015, however, the State Commission vide its Order dated 29.08.2017 dismissed the application as there was no power to review its own Order under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

5.       In my considered view that first appeal before the State Commission, arising from the Order dated 21.02.2000 of the District Forum, should, as far as (lawfully) feasible, be comprehensively and holistically examined on merit, on facts and law, with the affording of the due opportunity to both the sides, and should also be speedily disposed of, without unwarranted and unnecessary impediments. 

6.       In the interest of justice, and for holistic and comprehensive adjudication of the first appeal on merit, on facts and law, the impugned Order dated 17.11.2015 of the State Commission is set aside. The appeal is restored to its original number. The revision petitioner– opposite party is allowed one (more) opportunity to appear before the State Commission. The afore shall, but, be subject to just and reasonable cost.

7.       In the totality of the case, I find cost of Rs. 25,000/- (rupees twenty five thousand) to be just and reasonable. The same shall be paid by the revision petitioners - opposite parties to the respondent – complainant directly in her name by way of ‘payee’s a/c only’ demand draft within six weeks from today without fail.

8.       Subject to the cost being duly paid within the stipulated period, and subject to the State Commission being thus satisfied, the State Commission may kindly proceed further with the adjudication of the first appeal before it on merit as per the law.

9.       The revision petitioner - opposite party is sternly advised to conduct its case professionally before the State Commission. 

10.     The instant decision, to restore the first appeal before the State Commission subject to cost, may be viewed in the correct perspective; it may not be treated as a licence by the revision petitioners – opposite parties for unprofessional conduct of its case before the State Commission. 

          And, specifically, the State Commission may kindly exercise its wisdom in imposing cost and / or in dismissing the case in default if the revision petitioners – opposite parties (the appellant before the State Commission) in any manner conducts its case unprofessionally or absents itself from proceedings before the State Commission, at any time in the further adjudication of the case.

11.     Needless to add that in the contingency that the cost imposed (Rs. 25,000/-) is not paid within the stipulated period (6 weeks from today), the instant revision petition shall stand failed and the State Commission’s impugned Order dated 17.11.2015 shall stand confirmed.

12.     The parties shall appear before the State Commission on 05.09.2019.

13.     The principal onus of informing the respondents – complainants of this Order shall be on the revision petitioners – opposite parties.

14.     Going by the history of this instant case, the issue pertains to the year 1999 and we are in 2019, therefore, the State Commission is requested to decide the matter expeditiously preferably, before December, 2019.

15.     The Registry is directed to send a copy each of this Order to the State Commission and to the respondent – complainant and its counsel forthwith.

16.     In case the respondent – complainant is not present on the date fixed i.e. 05.09.2019 before the State Commission, the State Commission is requested to kindly issue fresh notice to the respondent – complainant, and to ensure its due service, and in all contingencies its ‘dasti’ service through the revision petitioners – opposite parties and also through publication by the revision petitioners – opposite parties, before proceeding further to adjudicate the case on merit as per the law.

          ‘Dasti’, in addition, to facilitate timely compliance.