Inspite of service of notice, nobody appears for the respondents. Heard counsel for the appellant. IA/6381/2015 IN FA/733/2015 The office has submitted report that this appeal has been filed with delay of 69 days. The appellant has filed IA/6381/2015 for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. In the condonation of delay application, the appellant has stated that the order dated 06.05.2015 was issued to the advocate appearing for the appellant before the State Commission on 03.06.2015 who handed over it to the office of the appellant on 04.06.2015. However, the official who received the order dated 06.05.2015, resigned from service. Mr. Rajan Sharma, another employee found the certified copy of the order in the drawer of the employee who received the order on 31.07.2015. The same was thereafter, communicated to Zonal Legal Manager on 05.08.2015 who recommended for challenging the order. Thereafter, the office has contacted the advocate appearing before the National Commission and the appeal was drafted and filed on 11.09.2015. Cause shown is sufficient. IA/6381/2015 is allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. FA/733/2015 Above appeal has been filed against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab dated 06.05.2015 whereby the appellant was proceeded ex-parte in the Consumer Complaint inasmuch as the notice issued in the Consumer Complaint was presumed to be served upon the appellant as neither the undelivered registered cover nor the acknowledgement has been received back. It has been stated by the appellant that the notice was served in the office of the appellant. However, instead of noting the correct date i.e. 06.05.2015, it was noted as 05.06.2015. Therefore, nobody could appear on 06.05.2015 before the State Commission. Cause shown is sufficient. Order dated 06.05.2015 proceeding ex-parte against the appellant is set aside. The appellant is permitted to appear before the State Commission and join the proceedings. Appeal is allowed. FA/1683/2018 Above appeal has been filed against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab dated 17.04.2017 whereby the miscellaneous application no. 2450 of 2016 filed by the appellant for taking on record the written reply as well as affidavit has been rejected. Accordingly, the written reply has also been rejected. It has been stated that the State Commission by the order dated 06.05.2015, proceeded ex-parte against the appellant. Thereafter, the complaint itself was dismissed in default on 16.09.2015. So far as the order dated 06.05.2015 is concerned, the appellant has challenged the above order before the National Commission in FA/733/2015. The complainant also challenged the order dated 16.09.2015 in FA/297/2016 and this First Appeal was allowed by the order dated 30.08.2016 and the complaint was restored to its original number setting aside the order dated 16.09.2015. After restoration of the complaint, the appellant filed its written reply along with miscellaneous application no. 2450 of 2016 on 24.12.2016. M.A. No. 2450/2016 has been rejected on the ground that FA/733/2015 filed by the appellant against the order dated 06.05.2015 has already been dismissed as infructuous on 06.01.2016. Therefore, his application is not maintainable. We have considered the arguments of the counsel for the appellant. So far as dismissal of FA/733/2015 on 06.01.2016 is concerned, the order dated 06.01.2016 has been set aside by this Commission by the order dated 03.08.2022. The State Commission however, failed to consider that the complaint itself was dismissed for want of prosecution on 16.09.2015 and the order dated 06.05.2015 has lost efficacy after dismissal of the complaint. When the complaint was restored afresh then fresh notice was required to be issued to the appellant and he had right to file written reply in the complaint after restoration of the complaint. The written reply in the complaint has been filed within 45 days after restoration of the complaint as such, the delay in filing the written reply ought to have been condoned and the same ought to have been taken on record. In view of the above, the order dated 17.04.2017 dismissing MA/2450/2016 is liable to be set aside. ORDER In the result, the appeal is allowed. Order dated 17.04.2017 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, dismissing MA/2450/2016 is set aside. MA/2450/2016 is allowed. The written reply attached along with it is directed to be taken on record. The State Commission shall proceed in accordance with law for deciding the complaint on merits. The appellant shall appear before the State Commission along with the certified copy of this order on 14.09.2023. Thereafter, the State Commission shall fix a date according to its own convenience and proceed in the matter. | 
