ORDER

1. DELAY CONDONED.

2. LEAVE GRANTED.

3. HEARD PARTIES.

4. IN OUR VIEW THE ORDER OF THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. BY AN ORDER DATED 18-4-2002, THE FATHER AND MOTHER OF THE DECEASED CLAIMANTS HAD ALREADY BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD AS A LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES. OF COURSE, THE FATHER HAD ALREADY DIED ON THE DATE HE WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD BUT THE MOTHER WAS ALIVE AND CONTINUED TO BE ON RECORD.

5. IT APPEARS THAT THE REVISION PETITION WAS DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION ON 13-1-2003. ON THE APPLICATION FOR RESTORATION NO SPECIFIC ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED RESTORING OR NOT RESTORING THE REVISION PETITION. HOWEVER, THE LAST LINE B OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER STATES THAT THE REVISION PETITION STANDS DISMISSED. THIS IMPLIES THAT THE REVISION PETITION WAS RESTORED. THE ONLY GROUND FOR THEN DISMISSING THE REVISION PETITION IS AS FOLLOWS:

"HOWEVER, WE FIND IN THIS CASE THE MINOR SUFFERED INJURIES AND HE FILED THIS COMPLAINT THROUGH HIS BROTHER AS HIS NEXT FRIEND AND GUARDIAN IN THE PRESENCE OF THE FATHER AND MOTHER AND MOREOVER DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE COMPLAINT THE MINOR HAS DIED AND NOW THEY WANT THAT COMPLAINT BE PROCEEDED WITH THROUGH THE FATHER AND MOTHER. W