Petitioner, who was OP3 before the District Forum, has filed the present revision petition. Son of the complainant/respondent purchased a colour TV from the petitioner for Rs.14,500/- on 29.12.2007. Allegedly, certain defects crept in during the warranty period. Respondent lodged complaints with the petitioner to rectify the defects. The engineer of the petitioner visited the respondent’s house and after checking the TV, showed his inability to rectify the defects. On 5.3.2009, the TV burst, which led to the fire in the house and household articles of the respondent got damaged. Being aggrieved, respondent filed complaint before the District Forum. District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner and OP2 to pay compensation of Rs.1 lakh to the respondent along with costs of Rs.2,200/- within 30 days from the date of passing of the order failing which the amount was to carry interest @ 9% from the date of filing of the complaint till realization. Petitioner, being aggrieved, filed the appeal, which has been dismissed by the impunged order in the absence of the counsel for the petitioner. The revision petition was filed on 17.1.2011. Counsel for the petitioner, on the last date of hearing, raised a contention that the petitioner had filed the appeal on 3.8.2010, which was ordered to be listed on 13.8.2010. On 13.8.2010, as the Coram of the State Commission was not available, the appeal was adjourned to 31.8.2010. On 31.8.2010, when the counsel for the petitioner attended the proceeding, he found that the appeal was not listed on that date. On enquiry, it was found that the case was listed and dismissed on 30.8.2010. On checking the register of the State Commission for 13.8.2010 and 30.8.2010, it was found that the cases which were listed at Sl. No.1 to 7 on 13.8.2010 were adjourned to 30.8.2010 and from Sl. No.8 to 16 were adjourned to 31.8.2010. The appeal of the petitioner was listed at Sl. No.8 on 13.8.2010 and was adjourned to 31.8.2010. Petitioner had filed the affidavit of the counsel, who had appeared for the petitioner before the State Commission. Notice was issued to the respondents for 19.4.2011. Respondents were served. The contesting Respondent No.1 was not present despite service. Since it was the first date of hearing after Notice, the case was adjourned to 28.7.2011. Office was directed to inform the respondent No.1 about the next date of hearing with a note that in case she does not appear on the next date of hearing, she shall be proceeded ex parte and the Revision Petition disposed of in her absence. Service on Respondent No.2, which is the dealer of the petitioner, was dispensed with as the petitioner did not seek any relief against Respondent No.2. On 28.7.2011, Shri Rahul Sharma, son of Respondent No.1 appeared and at his request the case was adjourned for today. Respondent No.1 is not present today. Ordered to be proceeded ex parte. From the facts stated hereinabove, it is clear that the appeal of the petitioner was listed at Sl. No.8 on 13.8.2010 and was adjourned to 31.8.2010; that the counsel for the petitioner had noted the date of hearing as 31.8.2010; that the appeal of the petitioner was taken up and dismissed by the State Commission in the absence of the petitioner on 30.8.2010. It seems that, by mistake, the appeal was listed for 30.8.2010 though it had been adjourned to 31.8.2010. Impugned order passed in the absence of the counsel for the petitioner is set aside and the case is remitted back to the State Commission to decide it afresh in accordance with law after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and Respondent No.1. Petitioner, through his counsel, is directed to appear before the State Commission on 1.11.2011. State Commission shall proceed to decide the case in accordance with law after due service on Respondent No.1. Nothing stated herein be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the dispute. | 
