1. This revision petition has been filed, with a reported delay of 157 days, under Section 58 (1) (b) of the Act 2019 in challenge to the Order dated 23.01.2023 in Appeal No. 132 of 2021 of the State Commission Uttarakhand arising out of Order dated 12.03.2021 of the District Commission in Complaint no. 288 of 2019. 2. A perusal of the record shows that the challenge is to an order of the State Commission vide which the appeal was dismissed in default. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record including inter alia the Order dated 12.03.2021 of the District Commission, Order dated 23.01.2023 of the State Commission, application seeking condonation of delay and the memo. of revision. 4. For better appreciation the impugned Order is quoted hereinbelow:- “Case is called out None is present on behalf of the appellant. Following order was passed by this Commission on the previous date, i.e. 10.01.2023: "Case is called out. None is present on behalf of the appellant. According to office report dated 10.01.2023, steps for service of notice upon respondents have not been taken by the appellant. Steps for service of notice upon respondents be taken by the appellant, within 10 days' positively. Put up on 23.01.2023 for further orders." Inspite of that, none has appeared on behalf of the appellant even today. It appears that the appellant is not interested in pursuing this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in default of the appellant. Let the record be consigned.” 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has elaborated upon the reasons and circumstances for filing this petition with delay. Keeping under consideration the circumstances as have been shown in the delay condonation application whereby it has been made to appear that the learned representing counsel for the petitioner appearing before the State Commission met with a serious road accident and sustained serious life-threatening injuries. The counsel remained critical and was shifted to another hospital in Chandigarh and it was because of this traumatic phase through which he underwent he could not attend the matter which resulted in the dismissal of appeal in non-prosecution and the same resulted in filing of the present petition with delay. 6. In the wake of the submissions made and the explanation given for the delay and also in order to facilitate arriving at a just conclusion on merits the delay in filing this petition stands condoned. 7. Normally the court would have issued notice to the other side but as the matter does not involve any complicated questions of facts or law, the appeal having been dismissed in non-prosecution in the absence of petitioner / appellant, the Bench deems it appropriate to dispose of the matter on the basis of record. 8. This Commission at this stage does not propose to delve into or touch upon the merits of the case but considering the nature of the dispute and the overall facts and circumstances in their totality and keeping in perspective the explanation proffered for non-appearance and the extreme circumstances which resulted in the disability of the counsel to appear before the State Commission it is felt just and conscionable that reasonable opportunity be further provided to the petitioner / appellant for adjudication of its appeal on merit in the State Commission, lest it be left remediless. 9. As such, in the interest of justice, without making any observations on merits of the case the Order dated 23.01.2023 of the State Commission is set aside and the appeal is restored to its original number before the State Commission subject to cost of Rs. 50,000/- to be paid by the petitioner / opposite party no. 2 to the respondent no.1 / complainant directly or through the State Commission on or before the date fixed, without fail. The petitioner / appellant is sternly advised to conduct its case in the right earnest with due diligence. 10. The parties shall appear before the State Commission on 28.11.2023. The State Commission is requested to adjudicate the appeal on merit after providing adequate opportunity to all the parties to pursue the matter as per law. 11. The principal onus of informing the respondents of this instant Order shall be of the petitioner. It shall do so within two weeks from today, without fail, and file proof thereof before the State Commission on or before the next date of hearing before it. However, if for whatever reason, the respondents do not appear before the State Commission on the date of hearing, the State Commission shall issue notice for requiring their presence in order to proceed in accordance with law in the matter, as directed by this Commission. The State Commission in such a situation may also require the petitioner to take adequate steps in order to facilitate service on the respondents. In case the respondents still feel to have objections to the instant Order, they may file appropriate application before the State Commission, submitting that they will raise their objection before this Commission (National Commission). In such contingency, the State Commission shall not proceed further with the appeal for a period of three months. In the said period of three months, the respondents may file appropriate application before this Commission to raise their objections. If the respondents move appropriate application in this Commission within the aforesaid period of three months, or before, further proceedings of the State Commission shall be subject to the orders that may be passed by this Commission on such application. If the respondents do not approach this Commission in the period of aforesaid three months (or before), the State Commission shall further proceed in the matter in accordance with law. 12. The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to all parties in this petition and to the learned counsel for the petitioner as well to the State Commission within three days. The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately. | 
