The dispute relates to repudiation of insurance claim by the respondent – insurance co.

1.      The District Forum vide its Order dated 30.08.2013 had allowed the claim of the revisionist – complainant.  The Order of the District Forum was ex-parte against the respondent – opposite party.

2.      In appeal the State Commission vide its Order dated 09.11.2016 had remanded the case to the District Forum for hearing afresh :

“- - - But, the District Forum has not followed the procedures under section 13 of the consumer protection Act 1986, and without establishing the case has allowed the claim of the complainant ex-parte.  It needs a fresh hearing.  Hence, the appeal is allowed and it is remanded to the District Forum for fresh hearing from the parties for adducing evidence, if any and for passing a reasoned order within 3 months from the receipt of this order - - - ”

3.      This revision has been filed by the revisionist – complainant against the said Order dated 09.11.2016 of the State Commission.

4.      In the interest of justice, and to settle the matter before us, the delay in filing this revision is overlooked.

5.      Learned counsels for both the sides submit that it would be appropriate if the District Forum hears the case afresh, after affording opportunity to both sides for adducing evidence and making arguments, in the normal wont, and the case is duly adjudicated on merit by the District Forum as per the law.

6.      Accordingly, in line with the Order dated 09.11.2016 of the State Commission, the District Forum is requested to adjudicate the complaint on merit afresh as per the law.  Both the sides are directed to present themselves before the District Forum on 07.01.2019. 

          Disposed.

          Let a copy of this Order be sent to the District Forum by the Registry within 10 days.

          At the request of learned counsels for both the sides, ‘dasti’ in addition.