This appeal is directed against the order of the State Commission dated 27.9.2017 whereby the consumer complaint filed by the respondent / complainant was allowed. 2. Earlier, the complaint filed by the respondent was allowed by the State Commission vide its order dated 31.8.2015. An appeal was preferred by the appellant against the aforesaid order of the State Commission. The appeal was disposed of by this Commission vide its order dated 19.7.2016, which to the extent it is relevant reads as under: “I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, it transpired during the course of hearing that the surveyor obtained an expert report from Shriram Institute for Industrial Research, Delhi whereas the respondent obtained expert opinion from National Sugar Institute Kanpur coupled with an opinion from the said institute on the report of the Shriram Institute for Industrial Research Delhi. However, neither the experts were examined as witnesses nor the respondents filed the affidavits of their respective experts. Since there is dispute as to whether spontaneous combustion had actually happened or not, it would be necessary to subject the expert to appropriate cross-examination before a decision can be taken on the said issue. The parties are therefore, permitted to either file affidavits of their respective experts or in the alternative to summon them through the process of the State Commission. In case the experts are summoned to depose before the State Commission, the other party would be entitled to cross-examine the expert before the said Commission. If affidavit of the expert by way of evidence is filed he can be asked to answer the interrogatories to be delivered by the other party through the process of the State Commission. The affidavit of the surveyor has been field by the appellant before this Commission. The said affidavit shall be returned by the Registry to the appellant to be filed before the State Commission. The respondent shall be at liberty to serve interrogatories to be answered by the surveyor.” 3. It transpired during the course of hearing that though the complainant filed the affidavit of its expert, no interrogatories were submitted by the appellant for being answered by the said expert. No expert was examined by the appellant nor did it file the affidavit of an expert before the State Commission. 4. The appellant was permitted by this Commission to file the affidavit of the surveyor, before the State Commission. The case of the appellant is that the said affidavit was filed, along with an application dated 10.7.2017 but no order on the said application was passed by the State Commission. The learned counsel for the complainants submits that no copy of the aforesaid application and affidavit of the surveyor was served upon the complainant. 5. Though, it can hardly be disputed that there has been negligence on the part of the appellant since it did not file either affidavit of an expert nor did it filed interrogatories to be answered by the expert of the complainant, I am of the view that in order to decide the complaint on merits, it would be more appropriate if one more opportunity is given to the appellant to either produce it expert as a witness or to file his affidavit by way of evidence as well as to serve interrogatories to be answered by the expert of the complainant. The affidavit of the surveyor also needs to be taken on record. 6. For the reasons stated hereinabove, subject to payment of Rs.50,000/- as costs, the impugned order is set aside and the appellant is given an opportunity to either produce its expert as a witness or to file its affidavit before the State Commission. The appellant is also given liberty to file interrogatories to be answered by the expert of the complainant. 7. The parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 19.07.2018. On that date, subject to payment of the cost, in terms of this order, the State Commission shall proceed with the complaint, after giving only one opportunity to the appellant to comply with the directions given herein. The State Commission shall endeavor to decide the complaint afresh, within three months of the parties appearing before it. Copy of this order be given dasti. | 
