JUDGMENT : Vasanti A. Naik, J. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. By this writ petition, the petitioner - Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Amravati challenges the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Nagpur, dated 16.1.2014 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner, in default. 3. The respondent had filed a complaint before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Amravati under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The complaint of the respondent was partly allowed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum on 7.1.2009. Against the order of the Forum the petitioner - Corporation had filed an appeal bearing Appeal No.554/2002. The appeal was pending before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Mumbai and the same was transferred to Nagpur at the end of the year 2013. The petitioner - Corporation was informed about the transfer of the appeal to the Circuit Bench at Nagpur. According to the petitioner, before the petitioner - Corporation could engage a Counsel to prosecute the appeal that was transferred to the Circuit Bench at Nagpur, the appeal was dismissed in default by an order, dated 16.1.2014 for the non-appearance of the petitioner or its Counsel before the Circuit Bench on 16.1.2014. 4. Shri Wankhede, the learned Counsel for the petitioner states that this Court may take a lenient view in the matter and set aside the impugned order. It is stated that before a Counsel could be engaged by the petitioner - Corporation for prosecuting the appeal that was transferred to Nagpur at the fag end of 2013, the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution by the order, dated 16.1.2014. It is stated that in the circumstances of the case, by taking a lenient view, this Court may set aside the order of Commission and remand the matter to the Commission for further hearing of the appeal on merits. 5. Shri Joharapurkar, the learned Counsel for the respondent has supported the order of the Commission and submitted that when the petitioner was not represented by a Counsel before the Commission in the morning session and in the evening session, the Commission had no other course open but to dismiss the appeal. 6. 5. Shri Joharapurkar, the learned Counsel for the respondent has supported the order of the Commission and submitted that when the petitioner was not represented by a Counsel before the Commission in the morning session and in the evening session, the Commission had no other course open but to dismiss the appeal. 6. On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, it appears that an opportunity needs to be granted to the petitioner - Corporation for prosecuting the appeal. It is conspicuous to note that not only was the petitioner absent before the Commission on 16.1.2014 but the respondent was also absent before the Commission on the said date. None had appeared on behalf of the parties before the Commission on 16.1.2014. It is not in dispute that the appeal was pending before the Commission at Mumbai before it was transferred to Nagpur in the year 2013. In the circumstances of the case, it is possible to believe the case of the petitioner that before the petitioner - Corporation could engage a Counsel for prosecuting the appeal at Nagpur, the appeal was dismissed by the impugned order. In any case, since, the appeal is not dismissed on merits and the default on the part of the Corporation is not on several occasions, it would be necessary to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Commission for a decision in the appeal on merits. 7. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is partly allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The Commission is directed to decide the appeal filed by the petitioner on merits, in accordance with law. The parties undertake to appear before the Circuit Bench of the Commission at Nagpur on 26.09.2016 so that issuance of notice to the parties could be dispensed with. 8. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.