I.A.NO.7368 OF 2014 This is an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the revision petition. The case of the petitioner is that since the impugned order was not passed in their presence nor were they aware of the date on which the said order was passed, they did not come to know of the order before they received a recovery notice on 12-09-2014. There is no material before us to show that prior to 12-09-2014, the petitioner was aware of the order passed by the State Commission on 26-09-2012. There is no evidence of the aforesaid order dated 26-09-2012 having been served upon the petitioner either by the State Commisison or by the complainant. If we compute from the date of receipt of the copy of the order by the petitioner there would be no delay in filing the revision petition, the same having been filed on 09-10-2014. Therefore, delay if any in filing the revision petition, is condoned. The application stands disposed of. R.P. NO.3833 OF 2014 1. On a perusal of the impugned order passed by the State Commission we find that the State Commission after revising its cause list published the same on its website and taking the said publication to be sufficient information, took up the appeal for hearing on 26-09-2012. Since no one was present for the petitioner/appellant the appeal came to be dismissed in default. In our opinion, mere publication of the cause list of the Commission on the website did not amount to proper notice to the parties to the appeal. The State Commission should have sent a notice and ensured its delivery upon the parties before taking up the appeal for the purpose of hearing. That having not been done, the petitioner/appellant did not come to know that the appeal filed by it would be taken up for hearing on 26-09-2012. Consequently, the petitioner could not appear before the State Commission on that date. 2. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned order dated 26-09-2012 dismissing the appeal in default due to absence of the petitioner is set aside. The learned counsel for the respondent/complainant has brought it to our notice that the petitioner had not been diligent in the matter since, it was proceeded ex parte before the District Forum after filing of the written statement and, thereafter, an application for setting aside the ex parte order was filed but was not diligently pursued. We, therefore, burden the petitioner with cost amounting to Rs.10,000/-, while allowing the revision petition. The cost shall be paid to the complainant/respondent within two weeks from today. The parties shall appear before the State Commission on 15-12-2014. 3. The State Commission is requested to decide the appeal within three months of the parties appearing before it. |
