SURAJ BHAN Vs. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AFTER going through the records of the case and after hearing the Counsel appearing for both sides, we are of the opinion that the interests of justice require that an opportunity of being heard before the State Commission should be afforded to the Revision Petitioner, who was the appellant before the State Commission. The dismissal of the appeal by the State Commission without going into the merits, on the ground of default of appearance was, in our opinion, not proper. We have held in more than once in cases decided earlier that in dealing with an appeal filed under the Consumer Protection Act, even if the appellant has not appeared before it at the time of final hearing of the case there is a duty cast on the appellant forum to examine the memorandum of appeal along with the connected records and to pass an order on the merits of the appeal, instead of dismissing it for default of appearance. This principle has been violated in the present case. This appeal is allowed. We set aside the order of the State Commission and remand the appeal for fresh, consideration on the merits in accordance with law. No costs.