1.       This revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Act 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 01.08.2015 of the State Commission in first appeal no. A/10/128 arising out of the Order dated 05.01.2010 of the District Commission in complaint no. 159 of 2009.

2.       The District Commission partly allowed the complaint on contest. It ordered the opposite party no. 1 (the respondent no. 2 herein) and the opposite party no. 2 (the petitioner herein) to pay a sum of Rs.1,19,200/- to the complainant (the respondent no. 1 herein) with simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum along with Rs.2000/- towards costs.

Appeal filed by the opposite party no. 2 was dismissed in default by the State Commission vide its Order dated 01.08.2015.

3.       The Order of the State Commission is reproduced below for ready reference:

Appeal is called at 11.35 a.m. today.  None is present for the appellant.  Respondent No. 1 – Mohanlal Hemane in person is present. Perusal of the earlier daily proceeding of the appeal shows that notice issued by this Commission to the respondent No. 2 was returned unserved with postal endorsement as “Left” and therefore appellant was directed on 14/10/2014 by this Commission to furnish changed address of the respondent No. 2 for reissuing notice to it.  However, the appellant has not furnished changed address of the respondent No. 2 though appeal came to be adjourned thrice i.e. on 07/01/2015, 27.03/2015 and 08/05/2015.  Therefore, last chance was given to the appellant for furnishing changed address of the respondent No. 2. Today neither the appellant is appeared nor changed address of the respondent No. 2 is furnished to this Commission.  Moreover, on last two dates i.e. 27/03/2015 and 08/05/2015 none had appeared for the for the appellant.  It observed on 27/03/2015 that the appeal deserves to be dismissed for want of prosecution.  In spite of that observation, the appellant has not taken any care for appearance and furnishing changed address of the respondent No. 2 till this date. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed in default. The appeal be recalled at the end of the board. 

Appeal is now taken up at the end of the board. Presently, also none appeared for the appellant through respondent no. 1 in person is present.  Hence, the appeal is dismissed in default.  

A plain reading shows that the necessary steps to duly effect notice on the opposite party no. 1 (the respondent no. 2 before the State Commission) were not taken by the opposite party no. 2 (the appellant before the State Commission) despite repeated directions having been made and sufficient opportunity having been provided. Additionally the State Commission dismissed the appeal in default on the third consecutive date on which the opposite party no. 2 (the appellant) was not present It is also seen that on the date of dismissal the complainant (the respondent no. 1 before the State Commission) was present in person.

4.       It is concomitantly noted that in the lower fo