Counsel for the petitioner states that he has complied with the directions given in the previous order. No one appears of the respondent despite notice having been issued as far back as on 13.09.12, which has not been received back unserved, therefore, there is a presumption of service of notice on the respondent in terms of section 28(A) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 2. We have heard counsel for the petitioner. Order dated 14.05.12 passed by the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short he State Commission in FA No. 778 / 2011 is sought to be challenged in these proceedings. By the said order, the State Commission has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner due to non-appearance of the petitioner or his counsel at the time of the hearing of the appeal. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the non-appearance of the appellant or the counsel was not deliberate but it was owing to the reason that the counsel representing the appellant got struck in the road-traffic and could not reach the State Commission in time when the matter was taken-up and by the time he reached, the matter had already been dismissed. 3. Having considered this position and that the appeal of the petitioner has not been answered on merits by the State Commission, we consider it expedient in the interest of justice to set aside the impugned order and restore the appeal on the Board of the State Commission to its original number to be decided on merits, which will be subject to cost of Rs.5,000/- to be paid to the respondent. The revision petition stands disposed off in above terms. Parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 07.01.2013 for further directions.