1. Counsel for both the parties present. Arguments heard. The case was dismissed in default by the State Commission vide its order dated 03.03.2012. The impugned order runs as follows:- “None for appellant. This appeal is filed on 07.02.2012. The appellant has not paid the statutory amount and therefore objection was raised and appellant was asked to comply and remove the objection on 21/02/2012. The appellant however did not remove the objection by that date. Even none appeared for appellant before the Commission. Hence appeal stands rejected.” 2. Counsel for the petitioners submits that he has paid the statutory amount. He further undertakes to remove the objections within one month. Mr. Jarnail Singh submits that he is a Proxy counsel. He is not aware whether he has filed Vakalatnama in this case or not. He tenders apologies for the same, which stand accepted, but he should not commit such like act in the future. He has no cause to explain as to why the case was dismissed in default. It is clear that the Advocate of the petitioners was very negligent. 3. There is delay of 89 days as well. Counsel for the petitioners is unable to tell. However, application for condonation of delay has been filed. The delay is explained in para No. A & B of the application, which are reproduced here as under:- A. The Ld. MSCDRC Bench Aurangabad vide its order dated 03.03.2012 (Saturday) was pleased to reject the appeal filed by the petitioners due to non removing of the objection i.e. non depository of fresh Demand Draft for statutory deposit of Rs. 25,000/- within a stipulated time period. B. That as per the discussions with legal advisor of Petitioners, the counsel for the Petitioners i.e. Shri Salve based at Aurangabad, had filed an application for recalling of the aforesaid order dated 03.03.2012 and for depositing the fresh Demand Draft of statutory fees. However, on 12.03.2012 the Ld. MSCDRC, Bench Aurangabad did not allow the same. The counsel for the Petitioners filed an application for obtaining certified copies of the order Dated 03.03.2012 passed by the Ld. MSCDRC, Bench Aurangabad and the same was received on 14.03.2012. 4. Keeping in view all the above facts and circumstances, we are inclined to condone the delay subject to payment of costs of Rs. 5,000/- and we are also inclined to restore the matter before the State Commission subject to further costs of Rs. 5,000/-, which will be deposited with the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission, within 4 weeks. 5. It appears that the respondents have been summoned unnecessarily as they are yet to be summoned by the State Commission. The case is yet to be admitted. The respondents are therefore discharged. They are required to appear before the State Commission whenever they receive summons from that Commission. 6. The receipt of payment of the above said costs total Rs. 10,000/- be produced before the State Commission. The State Commission will hear the appeal on the point of admission. The defects be removed within one month. 7. The respondent has not been paid Rs. 10,000/- as directed. Same be paid within one month otherwise the order passed by the State Commission dated 03.03.2012 shall prevail. 8. The petitioners are directed to appear before the state Commission on 29.01.2013. The matter stands disposed of. 9. Order be given Dasti to the counsel for the petitioners. | 
