No one appears on behalf of respondent No.2 despite of substituted service by publication in ribuneChandigarh dated 30.8.2013. Respondent No.2 is therefore proceeded ex-parte. -2- This revision petition is directed against the order of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula whereby the State Commission allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back to the District Forum, Kurukshetra on the ground that the arguments were heard by the President alone but he has obtained the signatures of the other Member of the Forum. We have heard the parties and perused the impugned order. Relevant portion of the impugned order is reproduced thus: - e have gone through the impugned order and are of the view that though the impugned order has been signed by the President and Member of the District Forum, Kurukshetra, even then it appears that arguments have been heard by the President alone and later on he got the signature of other Member of the Forum, which apparently shows that the impugned order was passed by him in violation of Section 14(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act. Therefore, without expressing any word on the merits of the case, we accept this appeal, set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the District Forum, Kurukshetra to decide the complaint afresh in accordance with law. Since the present complaint relates to the year 2003, therefore, we direct the District Forum to decide the matter afresh preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. On reading of the above, we find that merely because while dictating the order President of the District Forum had used the word instead of -3- ethe State Commission has presumed that order was passed by the President alone while sitting as a single Member in the Bench. There is no basis for this presumption particularly when even in the grounds of appeal no such plea was taken. Thus, in our view the aforesaid order is perverse and cannot be sustained. Impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the State Commission to hear the appeal on merits and decided it within three months. Parties to appear before the State Commission on 4.12.2013. No order as to cost.