This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner M/s Ramgarh Indane against the order dated 20.09.2019 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bench no.1, Jaipur (‘the State Commission’) wherein the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 02.01.2019 passed by the District Forum in Complaint no.077 of 2016 has been dismissed on the ground of limitation. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the respondent/ complainant had filed a consumer complaint of which no notice was served on the petitioner. Learned counsel also mentions that before filing of the complaint no information was given about the occurrence of fire due to leakage of gas in complainant’s house, otherwise the petitioner could have taken appropriate action to get the compensation from the insurance company. He further states that he was proceeded ex parte before the District Forum and he was unaware of any proceedings before the District Forum. When he received the notice from the executing court on 03.07.2019, he came to know about the order passed by the District Forum, then he immediately filed an appeal before the State Commission and thus, there was a delay of 139 days in filing the appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that in the application for condonation of delay moved before the State Commission these facts were mentioned, however, the State Commission has not accepted these facts and dismissed the application for condonation of delay. It is requested that the petitioner has not got any opportunity for defending its case either before the District Forum or before the State Commission, therefore, the appeal be decided on merit and the petitioner given a chance to file the evidence before the State Commission. 3. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and examined the record. First of all, since no notice was issued by the State Commission in appeal filed by the petitioner, hence no notice is being issued by this Commission to the respondent. Counsel for the petitioner is denying service of notice though the District Forum’s order states that notice was served and still the opposite party did not turn up. 4. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the opposite party was not given any opportunity to file the written statement or defend his case. When the matter was proceeded ex parte before the District Forum, clearly there was no opportunity for the petitioner to have the information about the pending case before the District Forum or the order passed by the District Forum. Therefore, the assertion of the petitioner cannot be doubted that he got the information when he received the execution notice, therefore, prima facie, the reason given by the petitioner for the delay in filing the appeal seems to be genuine and in my view, the petitioner should get a chance to defend his case before the State Commission, as the final order has already been passed by the District Forum. 5. Based on the above discussion, the order dated 20.09.2019 passed by the State Commission is set aside and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned at a cost of Rs.5,000/-. Cost be deposited with the Legal Aid Account of the State Commission or the Consumer Fund maintained with the State Commission on or before the next date of hearing before the State Commission. Once the cost is deposited, the State Commission is requested to take up the appeal and decide the same on merits after restoring the same to its original number and after giving opportunity to both the parties of being heard. 6. Parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 30th January 2020. | 
