SPICE JET LTD Vs. DIWAN RANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), by an Airlines, namely, Spice Jet Limited, the sole Opposite Party in the Complaint, is to the order dated 30.10.2017 passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at New Delhi (for short "the State Commission") in First Appeal No.370 of 2016. By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the Appeal preferred by the Petitioner against the order dated 27.01.2016, passed by the District

(2.) Upon notice, the Complainant is present in person. Accordingly, we have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the Respondent.

(3.) Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the sole cause for non-appearance of the Counsel, duly engaged by the Petitioner, before the State Commission was on account of wrong recording of the date of hearing in the diary of the lawyer and as a matter of fact on realizing the mistake a proxy counsel did appear in the Commission on the latter date but by that time the impugned order had already been made. In support, learned Counsel referred us to the copies of the case diary maintained by the lawyer. It is thus, pleaded that the Petitioner should not be made to suffer on account of the omission, if any, on the part of its lawyer.