These three Revision Petitions arise out of common orders dated 31.10.2012 and 07.01.2013, passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeals No. 579, 580 & 581 of 2008 and Miscellaneous Application No. 2548 of 2012 respectively.  By the latter order, the State Commission had dismissed the application filed by the Petitioner for recall of order dated 31.10.2012, whereby its Appeals were dismissed on merits.

          The main grievance, as emerging from the grounds urged in the Revision Petitions, is that adequate opportunity to defend the case had not been afforded by the State Commission, as the Appeals were decided in the absence of Counsel for the Petitioner.

Having perused the main order dated 31.10.2012, I am of the opinion that all the three Revision Petitions are devoid of any substance.  No explanation is forthcoming as to why on the date of hearing the Petitioner remained unrepresented.  Besides, the State Commission, on reappraisal of the entire material brought on record by the parties before the District Forum, has affirmed order passed by the District Forum.  It is pertinent to note that the directions given in the impugned order pertained to the finance company, which has not challenged order impugned in these Revision Petitions.  Learned counsel for the Petitioner is unable to point out as to how the Petitioner is affected by the impugned order.  Even otherwise, the Petitioner has not explained the delay of almost three months in filing the review application against the impugned order.

          For all these reasons, the Revision Petitions are dismissed with no order as to costs.