Appellant Insurance Company was the opposite party before the State Commission. Respondent/Complainant runs a cold storage for catering to the needs of the farmers in the locality by providing suitable storage facility for their perishable agricultural commodities. Respondent got the cold storage insured with the Appellant under tandard fire and special perilspolicy. On 24.04.2005, the Respondent noticed that in spite of all the precautionary steps taken by him, the stocks stored in the cold storage began to deteriorate due to change of temperature arising out of damage to the cold storage machineries. He made all possible attempts to save the stocks by installing hired power generator sets of 125 KV which ultimately turned futile. Since huge quantity of goods were stored in the cold storage the same could not be shifted to safer place overnight. Complainant suffered huge losses. He informed the Deputy Director, Horticulture Department who inspected the spot on his request and gave his report that 8000 bags were found to be rottened. According to the Complainant the damage was due to change of temperature due to failure of electric supply at the terminal ends of electric service feeders. Complainant also issued lawyer notice to the Assistant Executive Engineer on 18.05.2005 highlighting this fact. Respondent then lodged the claim with the Appellant Insurance Company which repudiated the same on the ground that the oss occurred is in consequence of short circuiting, which is exclusion clause under the policy. Being aggrieved Respondent filed a complaint before the State Commission seeking a direction to the Appellant to pay Rs. 90 lakhs to him along-with interest @ 16% p.a. Appellant entered appearance and filed its reply denying and contravening the facts stated in the complaint. State Commission without noticing the defence taken by the Appellant directed the Appellant to re-consider the claim of the Respondent by appointing another surveyor within two months from the date of order. The order of the State Commission is short and cryptic. The findings recorded by the State Commission are as under:- he claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the OP on the ground that the loss has been caused due to the short circuit. If at all if there is any short circuit then it would have resulted in the fire accident. But in the instant case it is not the case of the insurance company that there is any fire accident, which ultimately caused damage to the goods kept by the complainant in the cold storage. Therefore we are of the view that the loss if any suffered by the complainant is because of failure to supply the electricity or due to the fluctuation in supply of electricity by BESCOM. Therefore in our view the insurance company is not right in repudiating the claim on the ground that it is covered under the exclusion clause. We are told that the surveyor has assessed the loss at Rs. 9 lakhs. The counsel for the complainant submits that as the surveyor is of the view that the complainant is not entitled to claim for compensation and has assessed the loss, which is on the lower side. It appears that the complainant has produced certain documents before the surveyor in support of his claim. But after going through the report of the surveyor we are of the view that the matter requires reconsideration by the insurance company after appointing another surveyor to assess the loss. The perusal of the Order reveals that State Commission has presumed that the loss was not due to short circuit as there was no fire accident. Presumption raised by the State Commission that every short circuit results in fire cannot be accepted. Fire may take place because of short circuit but it does not mean that in case of every short circuit the fire would necessarily take place. Finding recorded by the State Commission that the loss was suffered by the Respondent because of the failture to supply the electricity or due to fluctuations in supply of electricity is conjectural and based on no evidence. The same cannot be sustained. Otherwise also the order of State Commission is a non-speaking order in as much as it does not refer either to the defence taken by the Appellant or the evidence, if any, produced by the parties. Finding record by the State Commission are not supported by any evidence. For the reasons stated above the order under appeal cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. Case is remitted back to the State Commission to decide it afresh in accordance with law. There is nothing on record to show that the parties had led their evidence. State Commission shall permit the parties to file/lead the evidence, if not already led. Parties through their Counsel are directed to appear before the State Commission on 16.08.2012. Since it is an old case we request the State Commission to dispose of the complaint expeditiously and preferably within a period of four months from the date of appearance.