JUSTICE V.K.JAIN (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order of the State Commission 14.08.2020 whereby the consumer complaint filed by the petitioner was remitted back to the District Forum to decide the same afresh with a speaking and intelligible order after taking into consideration the report of the forensic laboratory which the respondent had filed before the District Forum and which had not been adverted to in the order of the District Forum. 2. The petitioner owned a vehicle which he had got insured with the respondent for a sum insured of Rs.16 lakhs. The case of the complainant is that the said vehicle met with an accident on 06.05.2017 in the area of Dhariwal, Gurdaspur. Mr. Vaibhav Gehrana was appointed as a surveyor who inspected the vehicle and assessed the loss to the complainant at Rs.9,11,490/-. 3. The District Forum having allowed the consumer complaint the respondent insurer approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 14.08.2020 the State Commission took note of the forensic report dated 25.07.2017 which the insurer had obtained and had filed along-with the affidavit of the director of the forensic lab. The State Commission was of the view that there were several suspicious factors in the case of the complainant which had not been considered by the District Forum. 4. Particular reference was made to the omission to consider the report of the forensic lab dated 25.07.2017. The State Commission, therefore, remitted the matter back to the District Forum to decide the same afresh after considering the evidence available on record especially the report of the forensic laboratory Ex. OP-3. 5. The State Commission while remitting the matter back to the District Forum felt that the order passed by the District Forum did not contain adequate reasons and, therefore, directed issuance of a notice to the President and Member of the District Forum to explain as to why the impugned order had been passed in a casual manner and why action should not be taken against them in accordance with law. 6. The apprehension of the petitioner is that considering the view expressed by the State Commission his complaint is likely to be dismissed by the District Forum and this was more so considering the show cause notice which the State Commission issued to the President and the Member of the District Forum. In my opinion, the apprehension is not justified since the District Forum will be required to consider not only the forensic report but the entire record including the evidence produced by the petitioner/complainant. It is only on due consideration of the entire record that the District Forum will be deciding the complaint afresh by way of a speaking order. 7. As far as the administrative action initiated against the President and Member of the District Forum is concerned it is for the concerned President and Member of the District Forum, if they feel aggrieved from the above-referred direction of the State Commission to avail such remedy as may be open to them in law. However, it would not be correct to assume that the District Forum will be deciding against the petitioner/complainant only because of the State Commission having directed issuance of a show cause notice to its President and Member. 8. For the reasons stated hereinabove the revision petition is dismissed. It is, however, made clear that the observations made by the State Commission in the impugned order shall not effect or influence the decision of the District Forum, in any manner, and the said Forum shall decide the complaint afresh on merits on the basis of the material available on record which, of course, would include the report of the forensic laboratory. The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. | 
