USHA DEVI Vs. SUDAMA FRACTURE CLINIC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI Vikash Agarwal, Advocate has tendered his Vakalatnama on behalf of the appellants in FA/30/2012, which is taken on record.

(2.) BY this order, we propose to dispose of above -noted two cross appeals which arise out of the same judgment.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants in FA/30/2012 has contended that the complainant has been decided ex -parte because of non -appearance of the opposite parties pursuant to the notice issued by the State Commission for hearing dated 16.5.2011. It is contended that the absence of the opposite parties/appellants on the date of hearing was unintentional. Actually on the receipt of notice, the opposite parties engaged a law firm and they were under the impression that their counsel would appear before the State Commission. It is contended that the absence was due to no fault on the part of the opposite parties and,therefore, they should not be punished because of lapse of the part of the counsel engaged.