APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS For the Petitioner Mr. Aditya Narain, Advocate Ms. Anushree Narain, Advocate Mr. Shashank Bhushan, Advocate For the Respondents Mr. Adarsh Ganesh, Advocate with Dr. Balwinder Singh, Advocate PRONOUNCED ON : 14TH MARCH 2014 O R D E R PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 25.01.2013, passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short he State Commission in FA No. 731/2012, /s. Emmar MGF Land Limited versus Rupinder Kaur & Ors.vide which, while dismissing the appeal, the order dated 4.10.2011, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab in CC No. 291/2011, allowing the said complaint, was upheld. The appeal was ordered to be dismissed by the State Commission on grounds of delay in filing the said appeal. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the present respondents/complainants filed the consumer complaint in question against the petitioner/OP Developer, alleging that the petitioner/OP had performed deficiency in service and negligence in not carrying out the development of Sector 109, SAS Nagar, Mohali as per promises made in their letter dated 08.06.2007 and for not allowing the complainants to make their choices for preferential location, even after receiving the requisite charges and in not handing over possession etc. The complaint was heard by the District Forum and decided by them vide order dated 04.10.2011. On that date, the counsel for the petitioner/OP was not present before the District Forum, although he had been appearing during the previous hearings, but the District Forum, without giving a chance of hearing to the OP, passed the order in question. An appeal against this order was dismissed vide impugned order by the State Commission on the ground that there was a delay of 210 days in filing the said appeal. It is against this order that the present petition has been made. 3. At the time of arguments before us, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that as pleaded by them in their application for condonation of delay, filed before the State Commission, the petitioners had been regularly appearing before the District Forum through their counsel and had filed their reply and evidence. However, the said counsel did not appear before the District Forum on the date of arguments, but still, the case was heard and decided by the District Forum on that very day. Further, they never received copy of the order of the District Forum and came to know about the same on 14.04.2012, when a legal notice was received by them. They immediately engaged a new counsel and got hold of certified copies of the case papers and order of the District Forum on 30.04.2012. The appeal was then filed before the State Commission on 01.06.2012. The learned counsel argued that if the limitation is counted from the date of knowledge, there was only a delay of 11 days in filing the appeal before the State Commission and hence, the same should have been condoned by the State Commission and their appeal heard on merits. The learned counsel has drawn our attention to copies of the interlocutory orders passed by the District Forum in which the presence of Mr. Ashish Swarup, Advocate has been recorded. The learned counsel has referred to an order passed by the Honle Apex Court in ecretary, Department of Horticulture, Chandigarh & Anr. versus Raghu Raj[as reported in (2008) 13 SCC 395], in which it has been held that a party should not suffer on account of non-appearance of an Advocate. It has also been held that matter should have been adjourned so as to enable the counsel to make his submissions on merits. A similar view has been expressed by the Honle Apex Court in afiq and Anr. versus Munshilal & Anr.[as reported in AIR 1981 SC 1400], saying that a party should not suffer for omission on the part of their counsel. In ousing Board, Haryana versus Housing Board Colony Welfare Association and Ors.[as reported in AIR 1996 SC 92], the Apex Court held that the period of limitation should commence from the date on which copies of the order were ready and made available. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the complainants/respondents have placed on record a copy of letter No. DCDRC/SAS Nagar/2014/302 dated 30.01.2014, in which it has been stated that copy of the order dated 04.10.2011 in the instant case was dispatched through registered post to the complainants and the opposite parties vide dispatch No. DCDRF/SAS Nagar/2011/3295-3296 dated 10.10.2011. However, the learned counsel could not explain, whether there was proof of the said letter having been received by the petitioners. The learned counsel also stated that the petitioner should have been vigilant about the progress of the case and should have enquired themselves from the District Forum about the order passed in the case on 04.10.2011. 5. We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us. 6. The State Commission vide impugned order, dismissed the first appeal filed by the petitioners/OPs only on the ground that there was a delay of 210 days in filing the said appeal. On the other hand, the case of the petitioners is that they had no knowledge about the order of the District Forum, and as soon as they came to know about the order, they took the requisite steps and filed the appeal with a delay of 11 days only before the State Commission. In this regard, the copies of the interim orders passed by the District Forum, Mohali have been placed on record by the petitioners. As per these orders, the complaint in question was admitted and a notice was ordered to be issued on 06.07.2011 for 27.07.2011 by the District Forum. On 27.07.2011, Mr. Ashish Swarup, Advocate was present before the District Forum on behalf of the OPs. The said counsel was present on the next dates of hearing, i.e., 16.08.2011, 25.08.2011, 28.09.2011 as well. On 28.09.2011, the District Forum have recorded the following order:- resent :- Sh. Surinder Singh, Proxy Counsel for the complainant Sh. Ashish Swarup, C1 for the OPs No evidence of the complainant is present, Proxy counsel seeks adjournment on the ground that counsel for the complainant is away to Delhi to attend some case in the Honle Supreme Court. The adjournment is allowed on costs of Rs.500/- which should be deposited in the Legal Aid Account of this Forum. For evidence of the parties and arguments to come up on 04.10.2011. Written arguments be placed on the file two days earlier. 7. It is evident from above that on 28.09.2011, no evidence was produced on behalf of the complainants and they sought adjournment. The case was adjourned to 04.10.2011 for evidence of the parties and arguments. On 4.10.2011, the statement of Shri Balwinder Singh, Advocate for the complainants was recorded and documents were obtained on record. The counsel for the petitioners/OPs was not present on that date. However, the District Forum passed their final order also on that date. It is clear, therefore, that the case was decided without providing any chance to the petitioners to lead their arguments or to give any evidence in rebuttal. 8. Further, the case of the petitioners is that they came to know about the said order around 20.04.2012 when they received legal notice dated 14.04.2012. Although the letter issued by the District Forum says that copy of the order dated 04.10.2011 was dispatched by registered post to both the parties on 10.10.2011; however, there is nothing on record to show whether the petitioners received that copy or not. In the absence of any evidence to this effect, it shall be in the interest of justice that benefit of doubt is given to the petitioner and their version believed that they were not aware of the order dated 04.10.2011 for about six months. 9. From the situation narrated above, it is made out that the counsel for the petitioner had been appearing before the District Forum on earlier occasions, but he absented himself on 4.10.2011, on which date, the District Forum recorded the evidence of the respondents/complainants, heard their arguments and also passed final order. Since there is no conclusive proof that the petitioners received a copy of the said order of the District Forum dispatched by post, it shall be worthwhile to provide them an opportunity to plead their case on merits before the Consumer Fora below. The petition is, therefore, allowed and the orders passed by the State Commission and the District Forum are set aside. The matter is remanded to the District Forum with the direction that they should provide an opportunity to the petitioners/OPs to plead their case before them by leading evidence and then, the District Forum should decide the case afresh, after providing an opportunity to both the parties of hearing again. The parties have been directed to appear before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, SAS Nagar, Mohali on 28.05.2014 for further proceedings. There shall be no order as to costs.