LINGARAJA RATH, J.

( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. These two cases raise the same question and hence are disposed of by this common order.

( 2 ) THE petitioner in both the cases was one of the respondents in C. D. Nos. 51 and 84 of 1993, before the A. P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as "the Consumer Forum" ). Ex parte order against her having been passed holding her to have been guilty of deficiency of service and for payment of compensation, she filed a petition before the State Forum to set aside the ex parte order and to recall the arrest warrant issued against her as the order had been passed without notice to her. Orders were passed by the State Forum in I. A. Nos. 1745 and 1746 of 1994 in C. D. No. 51 of 1993 and I. A. Nos. 1747 and 1748 of 1994 in C. D. No. 84 of 1993 which are impugned before us, that an application for setting aside the ex parte order did not lie before the State Forum and that the only remedy available to the petitioner is to appeal to the National Commission.

( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner places reliance on a decision in Deal well Engineering Works v. V. V. Choudhary (1993) 1 ALT

Click Here to Read the rest of this document