T. V. NALAWADE, J.

1. The petition is filed to challenge the order made by the State Commission of this State under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereafter referred to as "the Act") in Appeal No.503 of 2011. By order dated 24th December, 2013, the State Commission dismissed the appeal by making the following order:

"1. Neither appellant nor their counsel Shri. A. S. Shelke is present. On 05.09.2013 none appeared for appellant, therefore matter was adjourned to 24.12.2013. Today also none appeared for appellant. We have perused the impugned judgment and order, same is just and proper. As nobody appeared for appellant, it seems that the appellant is not interested in pursuing the appeal. Hence appeal is dismissed."

2. In view of the objection taken by the learned counsel for Respondent and reliance placed by him on the observations made by the Apex Court in the case reported as, (Cicily Kallarackal Vs. Vehicle Factory, (2012) 8 SCC 524), the learned counsel for Petitioner was asked to make out a case on tenability of the writ petition.

3. The learned counsel for Petitioner took this Court through the scheme of the Act. He took this Court specifically through the provisions