JUDGMENT : N. Paul Vasantha Kumar, J. 1. This appeal is filed challenging the order of J&K State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jammu dismissing the claim petition filed by the appellant in default. Though several grounds were raised regarding the jurisdiction of the member of the Commission to dismissed the appeal, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant heavily relied on the affidavit filed by the learned counsel who represented the appellant before the State Commission. In the said affidavit it is stated that after issuance of the notice the respondent appeared through counsel and filed objections, which were received on 30.10.2015. Thereafter when the matter was listed the counsel who represented the appellant suffered an attack of spondylosis on 27.01.2016 and remained confined to bed till 08.02.2016 and during that period he could not attend the Court. The complaint was listed for hearing on 29.01.2016 before the State Commission and on that date the learned counsel could not appear due to his illness. The learned counsel also stated that as the Chairman of the State Commission is not available and only one member is functioning in the State Commission, the Commission used to adjourn the matters. Learned counsel also relied on the adjournment memo filed before this Court in CIMA No. 280 of 2010, which was listed on 01.02.2016 wherein also he has filed an adjournment application as he was not doing well and the said prayer was allowed by this Court. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent, opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and prayed for dismissal of appeal. 3. We have considered the rival submissions. 4. The issue as to whether after engaging the counsel the litigant can trust on him was already considered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the decision reported in AIR 1981 SC 1400 (Rafiq & Anr. v. Munshilal & Anr.) and it is held thus:- "The disturbing feature of the case is that under our present adversary legal system where the parties generally appear through their advocates, the obligation of the parties is to select his advocate, brief him, pay the fees demanded by him and then trust the learned advocate to do the rest of the things. The party may be a villager or may belong to a rural area and may have no knowledge of the court's procedure. The party may be a villager or may belong to a rural area and may have no knowledge of the court's procedure. After engaging a lawyer, the party may remain supremely confident that the lawyer will look after his interest. At the time of the hearing of the appeal, the personal appearance of the party is not only not required but hardly useful. Therefore, the party having done everything in his power to effectively participate in the proceedings can rest assured that he has neither to go to the High Court to inquire as to what is happening in the High Court with regard to his appeal nor is he to act as a watchdog of the advocate that the latter appears in the matter when it is listed......." In the decision reported in AIR 2009 SC 514 : (2008) 13 SCC 395 (Secretary, Department of Horticulture, Chandigarh v. Raghu Raj) the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraphs 24 it is held thus, "24. ......when a party engages an advocate who is expected to appear at the time of hearing but fails to so appear, normally, a party should not suffer on account of default or non-appearance of the advocate." The said judgments were followed by a Division Bench of Madras High Court in the decision reported in (2013) Supreme (Mad) 992 (A. Natarajan v. P.P.M. Kanagara). Applying the said judgment to the facts of this case and having regard to the fact that the counsel could not appear on 29.01.2016 due to the fact that he was bedridden, which fact was also pleaded before this Court in CIMA No. 280 of 2010 and was acceded to, we are inclined to allow this appeal as the absence of the counsel on the date of hearing is on justifiable reasons. Hence the order of the State Commission dated 29.01.2016 is set aside and the complaint is restored on the file of the Commission for deciding the matter on merits. No costs.