PER JUSTICE J.M. MALIK Learned counsel for the petitioner present. It is now transpired that the respondent has not yet been summoned by the State Commission. We have perused the order. There is no inkling that the respondent was summoned. It appears that still the case is fixed for admission hearing. The impugned order is reproduced here as under:- “BEFORE: HON’BLE MR. P.N. KASHALKAR, PRESIDING MEMBER HON’BLE MR. NARENDRA KAWDE, MEMBER Present: None Present. ORDER None is present for the Revision Petitioner when matter is called out at 02-30 p.m. Hence, Revision Petition stands dismissed for default. Pronounced on 27th September, 2012.” 2. Consequently, we are of the considered view that the respondent is yet to be summoned. It is for the State Commission to summon him or not after hearing the petitioner on the point of admission. However, it is clear that the petitioner is negligent. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the counsel appeared wee bit late. There is no such evidence. His late presence was never marked. He did not move the application immediately for restoration of this case. 3. In the interest of justice, we restore the case subject to payment of 5,000/- as costs, which will be deposited with the Consumer Welfare Fund established by the Central Government under Section 12 (3) read with Rule 10(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, of the Central Excise Act, 1944, by way of demand draft in favour of P.A.O., Ministry of Consumer Affairs, payable at New Delhi. The receipt of the same be produced before the State Commission. The State Commission after satisfaction will decide the case as per Law. 4. Petitioner is directed to appear before the State Commission on 03.10.2013. 5. The revision petition stands disposed of. | 
