V.B. Gupta, Presiding Member—Petitioner/Opposite Party being aggrieved by order dated 27.2.2013, passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Mumbai (for short, ‘State Commission’)has filed this revision petition under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘Act’).

2. The facts in brief are that both the Respondents/ Complainants accepted the offer of the petitioner to participate in Orbit Tour Programme in China during the period from 25.4.2005 to 30.4.2005. The agreed consideration of Rs.77,700/- (US $ 1468) was paid at that time by the respondents to participate in the tour which was branded as “Canton Fair 2005” where about 7500 stalls of different displays were displayed with modern technology. The respondents were interested to know the latest technique of furniture and interior. Therefore, they participated in the said tour programme. Both parties have relied on the brochure of the said tour programme printed and published by the petitioner as an organizer, received from the original event manager in China namely, Canton Fair organizers. The said brochure was with certain terms and conditions.

3. The respondents were not satisfied with the visit as the required display of furniture and interior was already concluded prior to their visit to the said fair. Further, the class accommodation as promised was not provided and also the air conditioning at the lodging arrangement went out of order for more than 24 hours causing great inconvenience and uncomfort to the respondents. Being dissatisfied with the tour, respondents on return to India sent notice for refund of the amount paid on account of said tour trade fair. The petitioner refused to entertain the claim. Therefore, consumer complaint filed by the respondents was decided by the District Forum, holding deficiency of service against the petitioner, with direction to pay an amount of Rs.77,700/- (US $ 1468) together with Rs.2000 as costs of the litigation.

4. Being aggrieved, petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission. During the course of hearing it was noticed by the State Commission that the Complainant (Respondent No.1) had expired and no legal heirs were brought on record. Hence, State Commission passed order dated 13.2.2013, observing that appeal filed against Respondent no.1 stood abated.

5. It would be pertinent to point out, that neither petitioner (who was appellant before the State Commission) nor his counsel appeared before the State Commission. Therefore, State Commission vide impugned order, decided the appeal in the absence of the petitioner and dismissed the same.

6. Hence, the present petition.

7. As per impugned order, it is manifestly clear that Respondent No.1 had died during pendency of the appeal, but his legal heirs were not brought on record. Therefore, the appeal stood abated against him.

8. We are really surprised as to how the petitioner has filed the present petition against a dead person. Though later on, petitioner has filed an application for deletion of the name of the Respondent No.1 (since deceased). Be that as it may, after filing the appeal petitioner did not appear before the State Commission. Therefore, the State Commission decided the appeal in the absence of the petitioner.

9. These facts goes on to show that petitioner had been very callous and careless in pursuing the litigation before the State Commission as well as before this Commission.

10. On merits, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that agreement between M/s. Marlaw Designs Co. Pvt. Ltd. and the petitioner was limited for providing Hotel Accommodation and transportation only for attending the “Canton fair 2005”. Petitioner was not at all responsible for alleged mismanagement at the fair, if any. There is not even a single allegation in the complaint with regard to deficiency in services by the petitioner, as per the terms of the agreement.

11. The District Forum, while partly allowing