1.       This revision petition has been preferred in challenge to the Order dated 18.02.2020 of the State Commission in appeal no. 339 of 2015 arising out of the Order dated 07.05.2015 of the District Commission in complaint no. 799 of 2008. The petition has been filed on 09.11.2020 under section 21(b) of the Act 1986; however, by the said date the Act 2019 had come into force. As such the petition is being disposed of under section 58(1)(b) of the Act 2019.

2.    We have heard the complainant no. 1 in person (the petitioner no. 1 herein) and the learned counsel for the insurance co. (the respondent herein) and have perused the record including inter alia the Order dated 07.05.2015 of the District Commission, the impugned Order dated 18.02.2020 of the State Commission, the application for condonation of delay and the petition.  

3.       This petition has been filed with a self-admitted delay of 168 days.

The learned counsel for the insurance co. submits that it has no objection to the delay being condoned.

In the interest of justice, and considering the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay, as also considering the submission of the learned counsel for the insurance co., as well as to decide the matter on merit rather than to dismiss it on the threshold of limitation, the delay is condoned.

4.       The matter relates to repudiation of an insurance claim. The District Commission vide its Order dated 07.05.2015 had allowed the complaint. However the State Commission vide its impugned Order dated 18.02.2020 had allowed the appeal filed by the insurance company and dismissed the complaint.

5.       The complainant no. 1 in person draws attention to paragraph 6 of the State Commission’s Order and submits that the State Commission passed its Order without the complainants (the respondents therein) having been able to advance their arguments. He accordingly requests that the matter may be remanded to the State Commission for deciding it afresh after affording opportunity to the complainants to advance their arguments.

6.       The learned counsel for the insurance co. does not dispute the fact of the complainants having remained unheard and, in all fairness, has expressed his no objection if the matter is remanded back to the State Commission for decision afresh. 

7.       In the wake of the above submissions, and keeping in perspective the principles of natural justice, the Order dated 18.02.2020 of the State Commission is set aside and the matter is remanded to the State Commission for deciding afresh after affording opportunity to both sides including the complainants to advance their arguments.

The complainants are sternly advised to conduct their case professionally before the State Commission and to ensure that they are present / represented to argue their case as and when the appeal is listed for arguments afresh by the State Commission.

It goes without saying that reasonable and sufficient opportunity be provided by the State Commission to the complainants to argue their case. But if still the complainants fail to do so, it will be open to the State Commission to proceed further in accordance with law in its wisdom in order to decide the appeal on merit.

8.       The parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 03.08.2022.  

The complainants are directed to file a certified copy of this Order with the Registry of the State Commission at least one week before the said date.

9.       The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to both parties in the petition and to their learned counsel as well as to the State Commission immediately. The stenographer is also requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.