ORDER Arun Kumar Goel J. (Retd.) President - This appeal is directed against the order dated 9.9.2004 passed by learned District Forum, Hamirpur, in M.A. no. nill in consumer complaint No. 11 of 1996. By means of impugned order, application filed by the applicant for restoration of the application for revival of the above complaint was dismissed thereby upholding the order of dismissal of revival application dated 12.9.2002 passed by the said Forum. 2. Facts regarding which learned Counsel for the parties were not at variance need to be briefly noted for disposal of this appeal. Consumer Complaint No. 11/1996 was filed by the applicant against the respondent. Later was set ex parte in this case and thereafter on 31.5.1996, he was directed to remove the deficiency in service by paying the money due to the applicant in the 4 Fixed Deposit Receipts (F. D. Rs.) with interest @ 18% per annum along with Rs. 1,000/- by way of costs. Respondent felt aggrieved by and dissatisfied with this order. He preferred Appeal No. 279/1999 before this Commission and vide its order dated 23.5.2000 in this appeal, it was allowed in the following terms: "For the reasons aforementioned, this appeal is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order passed by the District Consumer Forum, Hamirpur, on 31.5.1996 is set aside." 2. Facts regarding which learned Counsel for the parties were not at variance need to be briefly noted for disposal of this appeal. Consumer Complaint No. 11/1996 was filed by the applicant against the respondent. Latter was set exparte in this ease and thereafter on 31.5.1996, he was directed to remove the deficiency in service by paying the money due to the applicant in the 4 Fixed Deposit Receipts (R. D. Rs.) with interest @ 18% per annum along with Rs. 1,000/ by way of costs. Respondent felt aggrieved by and dissatisfied with this order. He preferred Appeal No. 279/1999 before this Commission and vide its order dated 23.5.20000 in this appeal, it was allowed in the following terms :- "For the reasons aforementioned this appeal is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order passed by the District Consumer Forum, Hamirpur on 31.5.1996 is set aside." 3. When no action was taken by the District Forum after the passing of the aforesaid order by this Commission, an application for revival thereof was filed on 7.8.2000. This application was contested and resisted by the respondent. Consequently, the impugned order passed by the District Consumer Forum, Hamirpur on 31.5.1996 is set aside." 3. When no action was taken by the District Forum after the passing of the aforesaid order by this Commission, an application for revival thereof was filed on 7.8.2000. This application was contested and resisted by the respondent. While admitting the fact of his appeal having been allowed by this Commission, it was pleaded that the application was not legally maintainable, as such was liable to be dismissed. It was also pleaded that complaint of the complainant (i.e.) present appellant), he deemed to be dismissed, and the same application for revival having been filed at belated stage, therefore, the question of reviving the complaint does not arise. This application was under consideration when on 12.9.2002, following order was passed by the Forum below - "This case called thrice, lastly at 2.15 p.m. But neither applicant is present in person nor represented through any authorized agent. The non-applicant was to supply the copy of grounds of appeal, but no such copy has been supplied. It appears that the applicant is not interested in prosecuting the application. Hence, the application is dismissed for non-prosecution, ft be tagged with main complaint file. The copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. 4. In the aforesaid background, for revival of the said application, appellant preferred application on 8.10.2002 duly supported with his affidavit. Amongst other facts, it was pleaded that Counsel could not appear on 12.9.2002 because he was busy with the proceedings of H.M.A. petition Om Parkash v. Pushpa Devi, before the District Judge, Hamirpur and applicant himself was away to Sirhind (Fatehgarh Sahib), (Punjab). As such, he could not attend the hearing. Therefore, a prayer was made that after calling for the record of the complaint Case No. 11/1996, as well as of the revival application, the order dated 12.9.2002 may be recalled and thus revival application may be restored to be heard and decided on merits. This application was also resisted on behalf of the respondent. It was pleaded by way of preliminary objection that application was not maintainable because order dated 31.5.1996 passed by the learned District Forum had been set aside by this Commission on 23.5.2000, therefore, application was liable to be dismissed. This application was also resisted on behalf of the respondent. It was pleaded by way of preliminary objection that application was not maintainable because order dated 31.5.1996 passed by the learned District Forum had been set aside by this Commission on 23.5.2000, therefore, application was liable to be dismissed. On merits, while admitting the passing of the order by this Commission, order of dismissal was supported by the respondent, therefore, it was prayed that application merits dismissal. Specific facts regarding the Counsel being busy in the Court of District Judge and the applicant having gone to Sirhind (Fatehgarh) (Punjab), were not disputed in his; reply by the respondent. This application has been dismissed, hence this appeal. 5. A preliminary objection was raised by Mr. Ranjan regarding maintainability of either the revival application or the application to restore the same after the former had been dismissed for default. According to him, while allowing his clients appeal in Appeal no. 279 of 1999 on 23.5.2000, there is no specific order of remand passed by this Commission. Thus according to him, for all intents and purposes, the complaint shall be deemed to have been dismissed. Further per Mr. Ranjan, even if this Commission comes to the conclusion that the order impugned in this appeal is not sustainable, still no fruitful purpose is going to be served by restoring the application filed by the applicant for revival of his Consumer Complaint No. 11/1996. Because in the absence of any specific order of remand while allowing the appeal, only course open for the applicant was to have either-approached the National Commission or to have applied for correction in the order. None of these remedies having been availed therefore, this appeal was liable to be dismissed, which is nothing but an abuse of the process of the authorities under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. These pleas have been controverted by Mr. Chandel on behalf of the applicant. Per him, if the submission of Mr. Ranjan is taken to its logical ends, it is going to result in complete anarchy and rule of law being defeated for some technical snag somewhere. 6. After having heard learned Counsel for the parties, on the basis of the matter before the Forum as well as this Commission, we are, prima facie, satisfied that the approach of the Forum below was not correct in law. 6. After having heard learned Counsel for the parties, on the basis of the matter before the Forum as well as this Commission, we are, prima facie, satisfied that the approach of the Forum below was not correct in law. In out considered view, it was too technical besides being pedantic, it needs to be clarified in this behalf that no litigant stands to gain by employing tactics which ultimately frustrate his own claim. The applicant did whatever was expected of him. If lawyer did not appear for reasons beyond his control when the case was dismissed for default when it was called out, litigant cannot be made to suffer. In this behalf it may also be observed that plea set out for his absence on 12.9.2002 was that he was way to Sirhind (Fategarh Sahib) in the State of Punjab. At the same time, it is not the case of the respondent that the presence of the applicant was necessary and/or that the of the respondent that the presence of the applicant was necessary and/or that the absence when case dismissed in fault of the party/his Counsel was either purposeful and or wilful as well as intentional. 7. Further, a perusal of the impugned order shows that no separate affidavit having been filed by the applicant in support of the fact that he was away to Sirhind (Punjab) on that day was made a ground while passing the same. As already noted, affidavit had been filed supporting the contents of the application. On the other hand with the reply there is no such affidavit filed by he respondent. In our view there was no need to have filed a separate affidavit by the applicant: Reason being that facts were detailed in the application which have been supported with the affidavit of the applicant. In these circumstances, on this ground alone, passing of impugned order cannot be sustained at all. 8. Now coming to the plea of Mr. Ranjan that while allowing the appeal in terms of the order supra, this Commission had not specifically ordered the remand of the complaint. Prima facie, this submission appears to be quite attractive, but when examined in depth, it is without any substance. Reasons being that the appeal had been allowed. 8. Now coming to the plea of Mr. Ranjan that while allowing the appeal in terms of the order supra, this Commission had not specifically ordered the remand of the complaint. Prima facie, this submission appears to be quite attractive, but when examined in depth, it is without any substance. Reasons being that the appeal had been allowed. If the complaint was dismissed by this Commission probably appellant could not have maintained the application for the revival of his complaint No. 11/1996 before the District5 Forum, Hamirpur. Direct consequence of appeal having been allowed was that order was set aside and by no stretch of imagination to can be said that in law, there was dismissed of the complaint as well. It appears that the District Forum did .not examine the matter in its right perspective after receipt of the order of this Commission in appeal No. 279/1999, dated 23.5.2000. It ought to have revived the complaint and -then to have dealt the matter. And the application for revival the complaint and then not have dealt the matter. And the application for revival of complaint when filed was dismissed in default on 12.9.2002. There was hardly any need for filing any application by the complainant. If the argument of Mr. Ranjan is taken to its logical end, it is going to lead to absurdity, because complaint will stand dismissed without its having been adjudicated upon as required under law. it is further felt that even in the absence of express direction of the complaint having been remanded after respondents appeal was allowed, it can safely be inferred that Forum was required under law to have disposed of the complaint as enjoined upon it after following the law in its letter and spirit. This direction is in consonance with law and also advances the cause of justice for setting the controversy at rest between the parties. An interpretation which leads to absurdity and/or negates the purpose of beneficial provisions of law by taking either too technical or a pedantic approach has always to be avoided. 9. No other point is urged. This direction is in consonance with law and also advances the cause of justice for setting the controversy at rest between the parties. An interpretation which leads to absurdity and/or negates the purpose of beneficial provisions of law by taking either too technical or a pedantic approach has always to be avoided. 9. No other point is urged. In view of the aforesaid discussion, impugned order dated 9.9.2004 passed by the District Forum, Hamirpur in M.A. No. nill in Consumer Complaint No. 11/1996 is hereby quashed and set aside, consequently the application dated 8.10.2002 is hereby allowed and at the same time application for revival of the complaint No. 19/1996 that was dismissed for default on 12.9.2002, supra, is also allowed. As a final outcome of this, complaint No. 19/1996 shall stand restored forthwith. Looking to its age, Forum is now directed to make all out efforts fro the disposal of the complaint at the earliest and in no case later than 30.4.2006. Parties through learned Counsel are directed to appear before the District Forum at Hamirpur on 3.12.2005. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Record of the Forum below be sent back forthwith. : Appeal stands disposed of in above terms.