PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 5.8.2008 passed by Learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, he State Commission in Appeal No. FA-08/585 M/s. M.K.S. Compaq Systems Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Surendra Nagpal by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld. 2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent an Advocate purchased computer from OP/petitioner No. 1 and paid Rs.22,000/- for which, no bill was given. It was further alleged that Pentium-IV computer system was ordered, but OP delivered him Celron computer and requested that within a few days this computer will be replaced by Pentium-IV computer system, as ordered. Computer started giving problems from the inception. Complainant requested OP to change the computer, but was not changed. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that neither amount was paid to it, nor computer was supplied by it to the complainant and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum vide order dated 18.7.2005 dismissed complaint. On appeal, learned State Commission vide order dated 22.3.2006 allowed appeal and matter was remanded back to learned District Forum to decide it afresh on merits. Learned District Forum vide order dated 5.4.2008 allowed complaint and directed OP to refund Rs.22,000/- on returning back Celron computer but the appeal filed by the OP was dismissed by learned Sate Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused record. 4. Respondent appeared in person on 18.12.2013 and prayed for adjournment. On 6.2.2014 none appeared for the respondent; so, arguments were heard on behalf of the Counsel for the petitioner. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that learned State Commission decided appeal without hearing petitioner herein and further submitted that material facts have not been considered by learned State Commission; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. 6. Record reveals that petitioner filed application on 20.8.2008 before learned State Commission for restoration of appeal as inadvertently wrong date was noted by the Counsel for the appellant as 18.8.2008 instead of 5.8.2008; so, Counsel for the appellant could not appear before learned State Commission. Learned State Commission rightly dismissed application vide order dated 2.9.2009 as learned State Commission had no power to review the order. 7. It becomes clear that learned State Commission passed impugned order without hearing petitioner on account of noting down wrong date of hearing. Impugned order reveals that State Commission has not given any reason for dismissing appeal and has not dealt with the grounds of attack mentioned in memo of appeal. Perusal of record reveals that on behalf of Shri Suresh Sharma, Advocate, notice was given on 16.6.2004 by aw Ambitfirm and Mr. Surendra Nagpal was one of the Advocates in this firm. Reliance has been placed on the affidavit of Shri Suresh Sharma filed in October, 2007. Later on, Mr. Rajesh Mishra, Advocate served notice dated 28.10.2004 on petitioner on behalf of the complainant. Affidavits of Mr. Amit Grover and Mr. Suresh Kumar Sharma filed in support of complaint also do not disclose any date of cash payment. Admittedly, no bill of purchase has been filed as not issued as per the complaint. On the other hand, petitioner has denied receipt of payment and delivery of computer. In such circumstances, it would be appropriate to remand the matter back to the learned State Commission for disposal of appeal after hearing petitioner. 7. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated 5.8.2008 passed by learned State Commission in Appeal No. FA-08/585 M/s. M.K.S. Compaq System Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Surender Nagpal is set aside subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- as cost to respondent and matter is remanded back to learned State Commission to decide it afresh after giving an opportunity of being heard to both the parties. 8. Petitioner is directed to appear before Learned State Commission, Delhi on 24.3.2014.