Sanjay Kumar Gupta, J.—In the instant petition, it has been stated that the petitioner is running the business of General Provisional Store at main Bazar Banihal; that vide Insurance Policy dated 18.11.2003, petitioner’s business stocks were insured with the respondent; that on the intervening night of 11th/12th June, 2004 the shop of the petitioner along with other adjoining shops caught fire due to some electric shot circuit, as a result of which the stocks of the petitioner were completely burnt; that the respondents did not pay the insurance amount. Upon which, the petitioner filed a complaint before the Divisional Consumer Forum, Jammu, where the petitioner led evidence but his counsel did not appear and the same was dismissed by the Divisional Consumer Forum Jammu vide order dated 30.11.2007. On coming to know about the dismissal of his complaint, the petitioner filed an appeal along with an application for condonation of delay, before the J&K State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Jammu. The petitioner has given cogent reasons for condonation of delay. However, the J&K State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Jammu, vide order dated 24.02.2010 has dismissed the application for condonation of delay and also held the appeal as merit less. The grounds projected by the petitioner for condonation of delay have not been considered by the J&K State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jammu.

2. Feeling aggrieved of the order dated 24th February, 2010, passed by the J&K State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jammu, the petitioner challenges the same, inter alia, on the following grounds:—

i. The petitioner has given the cogent reasons for condonation of delay. The State Commission while dismissing the application for condonation of delay has not considered the facts, which have been pleaded by the petitioner in the application for condonation of delay.

ii. The petitioner has clearly pleaded that he was doing the business and also residing at Banihal. In this connection, he has led evidence by way of evidence. He has also submitted supplementary affidavit in support of his claim before Divisional Consumer Forum, Jammu. The petitioner pleaded that after the colossal loss in the fire incident, he had started business afresh and it had become very difficult for him to maintain him and his family members and that he was under this impression that his counsel was conducting the case properly.

iii. It is a settled principle of law that a party cannot be punished for default committed by his counsel. In the present case, there is a default on the part of the counsel and admittedly, the petitioner has done everything, which was required to be done on his part. In these circumstances, the application for condonation of delay ought to have been allowed and the appeal ought to have been decided on merit.

iv. It is also well settled principle of law that while considering the application for condonation of delay, liberal view should be taken. The shop of the petitioner was admittedly insured and the same was gutted in fire and the goods insured were destroyed, however, the amount of full compensation was not paid. In these circumstances, the appeal to have been decided on merit after condonation of delay.

v. Though the application for condonation of delay has been dismissed, yet the State Commission has also held in one sentence that the appeal was meritless. The aforesaid course is not sustainable and the order impugned is, therefore, liable to be quashed.

3. Objections stand filed on behalf of respondent No.1 stating therein that the writ petition in the present form is not maintainable as no fundamental, legal or constitutional right of the petitioner has been violated. It is stated that the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The Divisional Forum Jammu which has dismissed the original complaint filed by the petitioner under Consumer Protection Act is a necessary party for the decision o