Challenge in these proceedings is to the order dated 8.11.2011 passed by Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short he State Commission by which order the State Commission has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner herein in default in appearance. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the non-appearance for the appellant at the time of hearing of the appeal was due to the reason that the tyre of the car of the counsel got punctured and it took time to change the tyre and reach to the Commission. An affidavit to this effect has also been filed. Considering the circumstances and the judgement of the Supreme Court in Rajeev Hitender Pathak & Ors. Vs. Achyut Kashinath Karekar & Anr.[2011 9 SCC 541] we allow the present petition and restore the appeal to the board of the State Commission. We have not issued any notice to the respondent as no notice on the appeal was issued to the respondent and the appeal was listed for preliminary hearing before the State Commission. Petitioner is directed to appear before the State Commission on 21.08.2012.