The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the limitations on the State Commission's power to recall an ex parte order.

Heard the learned Advocates for the respective sides at length.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and the petition is heard finally by the consent of the parties.

3. The issue raised by the petitioner in this petition is with reference to an order of the Maharashtra State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Mumbai, Circuit Bench at Aurangabad (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission' for brevity).

4. The petitioner had filed a First Appeal No. 481/2009, before the State Commission. On 21-11-2013, the State Commission dismissed the appeal in view of the appellant as well his Counsel remaining absent. The said appeal was, therefore, dismissed in default (DID).

5. The petitioner further contends that he attempted to file an application on the same date before the State Commission for filing of his Vakil Patra and recalling of the order of dismissal in default (DID) passed by the State Commission. However, according to the petitioner, the said application was not accepted by the office of the State Commission. He, therefore, submitted that an application on the same day was made seeking a certified copy of the order of DID, dated 21-11-2013.

6. The petitioner has stated that since an application for setting aside the DID order was attempted to be filed, and was not registered, the petitioner then preferred an application for obtaining the certified copy of the said order. By this petition he, therefore, prayed that the said DID order may be quashed and set aside and the First Appeal be restored to the file of the State Commission.

7. Shri Gunale, learned Advocate on behalf of respondent No. 1 has vehemently opposed this petition. His contention is that the petitioner was negligent and careless in attending the proceedings before the State Commission. He deserves no sympathy. Due to laxity on his part, his appeal has been dismissed in default. He, therefore, submits that the law should not assist a sleeping litigant.

8. Shri Manale, learned Advocate for respondent No. 2, supports the contention of the respondent No. 1. However, he has very fairly conveyed to the Court that an order of dismissing the appeal in default cannot be recalled and the order of DID, cannot be set aside by the State Commission, since it has no powers to do so. He has relied upon the judgment in the case of Rajeev Hitendra Pathak and ors. vs. Achyut Kashinath Karekar and anr., reported at 2012 (2) Mh.L.J. (S.C.) 1 = 2011 (9) SCC 541. He has drawn my attention to the contents of paragraph Nos. 2, 6, 11, 35, 36, and 37 of the said judgment which read as under :-

"2. The main question which arises for consideration is whether the District Consumer Forums and the State Commission have the power to set aside their own ex parte orders or in other words have the powers to recall or review their own orders.? 6. The complainants issued a legal notice on 24-7-1999. Reply to the legal notice was sent on 7-8-1999. The complainants filed complaint alleging deficiency in service and claimed compensation of Rs. 15,00,000/-. The complainants did not take necessary steps to remove objection and to complete procedure under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The State Commission, Maharashtra issued notice to the opposite parties/appellants herein on 10-2-2004. On 9-9-2004, the State Commission dismissed the complaint for want of prosecution. On 4-11-2004, the complainants filed an application for recalling 9-9-2004 order and consequently the State Commission recalled the order dated 9-9-2004 and restored the complaint. 11. We have been called upon to decide whether the State Commission has the power to recall an ex parte order. 35. We have carefully scrutinized the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. We have also carefully analyzed the submissions and the cases cited by the learned counsel for the parties. 36. On careful analysis of the provisions of the Act, it is abundantly clear that the Tribunals are creatures of the Statute and derive their