Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 12.03.2010 passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata (in short, he State Commission in S. C. Case No. CC/08/15. By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the complaint -2- filed by the appellant herein before the State Commission holding that the complaint seems to have become infructuous as the claim made under the complaint having already been settled by the respondent-insurance company by paying a sum of Rs.13,07,740/-. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have considered their submissions. Learned counsel for the appellant would assail the impugned order mainly on the ground that the State Commission has grossly erred in dismissing the complaint by concluding that the complaint had become infructuous by taking note of some events in regard to the settlements of some other claim relatable to the loss occasioned to the complainant in a different peril. In this regard, learned counsel for the appellant has invited our attention to order dated 18.11.2008 passed by the State Commission, which is to the following effect:- oth sides are present though their Ld. Advocates. OP files W/O. It appears from the contention of the Ld. Advocates for both sides that earlier objection was filed through inadvertence and the same does not relate to subject dispute. Therefore, the earlier objection filed on 19.8.08 is hereby rejected and the objection filed today be accepted as the W/O filed by the OP in the present proceeding. Complainant is directed to file evidence on affidavit. Fix 3.12.2008 for filing. -3- A bare perusal of the above proceedings of the State Commission would make it clear that earlier version filed by the respondent-insurance company in response to the complaint in question was relatable to the complaint in question. However, it would appear that while making the impugned order may be due to no representation/ineffective representation on behalf complainant, the above objection escaped from the notice of the State Commission, which has led to the passing of the order and in turn miscarriage of justice. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the impugned order is legally unsustainable and is liable to be set aside and the matter be remanded back to the Board of State Commission for answering the complaint afresh in accordance with law. We order accordingly. The parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 10.12.2010 for receiving further directions in the matter. The State Commission is requested to dispose of the complaint expeditiously. Dasti to both sides.