1.   This appeal under section 19 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is in challenge to the Orders dated 03.10.2018 and dated 19.03.2019 of the State Commission in complaint no. 384 of 2011.

2.  We have heard learned counsel for the appellant (the ‘complainant’) and for the respondent (the ‘insurance co.’). We have also perused the material on record including inter alia the impugned Orders dated 03.10.2018 and dated 19.03.2019 of the State Commission and the memorandum of appeal.

3.       The appeal has been filed with self-admitted delay of 120 days. 

Leaned counsel for the appellant draws attention to the reasons contained in the application for condonation of delay and requests for the delay to be condoned.

Learned counsel for the respondents opposes condonation.

However, in the interest of justice, inter alia having regard to the reasons contained in the application for condonation of delay, in order to decide the matter on its merits rather than to dismiss it at the threshold of limitation, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

4.   The matter pertains to an insurance claim. The elephant in question was insured for the period from 30.07.2009 to 29.07.2010. During the subsistence of the policy the elephant died. The complainant informed the insurance co. A surveyor was appointed by the insurance co. The insurance co. however failed to honour the claim. The complainant filed a complaint before the State Commission. Vide its Order of 03.10.2018 the State Commission dismissed the complaint ‘in default and for non prosecution’.

Thereafter vide its Order dated 19.03.2019 the State Commission dismissed the application for recall of its earlier Order dated 03.10.2018 inter alia observing that it “has no power to review its own order”.

The present appeal has been filed by the complainant seeking restoration of his complaint.

6.   Learned counsel for the complainant submits that the complainant has a good case on merit and wants opportunity to present his case before the State Commission. Submission is that the complainant will prejudicially suffer irreparably if the complaint is not restored and it may eventually lead to complete miscarriage of justice leaving the complainant remediless and helpless. 

Learned counsel for the insurance co. opposes restoration.

However, having objectively and impartially considered the nature of the dispute and the overall facts and circumstances as are being borne out by the record, it is deemed to be just and conscionable that opportunity be provided to the complainant for getting the matter adjudicated on merit before the State Commission.

This Commission is consciously refraining from detailing the facts or critiquing the matter since the dispute is as yet to be adjudicated on merit and it does not wish to in any manner colour the vision of the forum below.

8.   The Orders dated 03.10.2018 and dated 19.03.2019 of the State Commission are set aside and the complaint is restored to its original number before the State Commission.

The complainant is sternly advised to conduct his case with due diligence before the State Commission.

The parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 20.06.2023.

The State Commission is requested to adjudicate the complaint on its merits in accordance with the law.

9.   The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the parties and to their learned counsel immediately. It is also requested to forthwith send a copy of this Order to the State Commission by the fastest mode available. The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.