Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had been dropped before the District Forum but was later on impleaded by the State Commission as Respondent No.1 on 16.10.2008 on an application filed by the Respondent/complainant.  That the petitioner had not filed its written statement.  That after few adjournments, ultimately the case was adjourned for hearing on 16.2.2010.  That the State Commission, without issuing Notice to the respondent preponed the hearing of the appeal to 14.10.2009.  That the appeal was decided in the absence of the petitioner without notifying the date of hearing to the petitioner.  Learned counsel appearing for the respondent fairly concedes that the appeal was disposed of by the State Commission in the absence of the petitioner by preponing the date of hearing to 14.10.2009 from 16.2.2010 without issuing Notice to the petitioner.

          Since the State Commission has decided the appeal by preponing the date of hearing without notifying the same to the petitioner, the order of the State Commission 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 parties.

          Parties, through their counsel, are directed to appear before the State Commission on 15.2.2011.  All contentions are left open.  Petitioner would be at liberty to move an application before the State Commission to file its written statement and the State Commission shall pass an appropriate order on the same.