The order dated 25.04.2012 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (for short the State Commission) in First Appeal No. A/07/1500 is in question in these proceedings.  By the said order, the State Commission has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner/complainant by observing as under :-

“Both the parties remained absent.  Intimation of the date fixed was already published on notice board of the Commission, the Bar and internet.  Beside this, by way of abundant precaution, notices intimating today’s date were also sent to both the parties by post on 31/03/2012.  Since, both the parties are remaining absent; the appeal stands dismissed for default.”

Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant submits that the absence of the counsel for the appellant/complainant was not intentional before the State Commission but it was owing to the traffic jam that the counsel for the appellant/complainant could not reach the State Commission in time at the time when the appeal was taken up for hearing.  Believing this to be a correct reason and considering the fact that the appeal filed by the petitioner/complainant has not been considered on merits, we allow the revision petition and set aside the impugned order and restore the appeal on the board of the State Commission, subject to cost of Rs.1000/- to be deposited in the legal aid account of this Commission.  The petitioner/complainant is directed to appear before the State Commission on 15.10.2012.