Petitioner’s husband took Super Suraksha Policy in the year 2004.  As per policy, if the policyholder dies, then the loan amount was to be waived.  Insured died in an accident on 09.10.2006.  Claim lodged by the petitioner was repudiated, aggrieved against which the petitioner filed complaint No.335/2009 which was allowed.  Insurance company was directed to pay Rs.4,43,439/-.  Complaint against the bank was dismissed.

          During the pendency of the proceedings, respondent bank sent a letter claiming Rs.2,79,155/- towards the loan account. 

Complainant filed appeal No.3908/2009 before the State Commission.  State Commission dismissed the appeal as withdrawn reserving liberty with the petitioner/complainant to file a fresh complaint.

          Petitioner, thereafter, filed the complaint No.26/2010 which was dismissed by the District Forum by observing that the second complaint on the same cause of action was not maintainable.  Petitioner being aggrieved filed the appeal No.1578/2010 before the State Commission which has been dismissed by the impugned order.

-3-

          Counsel for the petitioner/complainant contends that since the earlier appeal filed by him was got dismissed as withdrawn reserving liberty with him to file a fresh complaint, the second complaint filed by him was maintainable.  Counsel for the respondents contends that the second complaint was not maintainable. 

          On the last date of hearing, we had adjourned this case for today to enable counsel for the respondents to examine as to whether the appeal, which was got dismissed by the petitioner/complainant as withdrawn, could be revived in view of the subsequent order passed by the fora below regarding non-maintainability of the second complaint.

          Counsel for the respondents, after taking instructions, submit that the second complaint filed by the petitioner was not maintainable but they have no objection to the revival of the first complaint. 

We agree with the view taken by the State Commission that the second complaint on the same cause of action was not maintainable, but since the State Commission by its earlier order had dismissed the complaint as withdrawn reserving liberty to file fresh complaint, in order to do substantial justice between the parties and to provide the opportunity to the complainant/petitioner to contest the case on merits, we set aside the order passed by the State Commission in appeal

-4-

No.3908/2009 dated 15.12.2009 dismissing the complaint with liberty to file fresh complaint. Case is remitted back to the State Commission to decide the appeal No.3908/2009, which was got dismissed as withdrawn, on merits after affording due opportunity of hearing to the parties.

          Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the State Commission on 09.05.2013.

          All contentions are left open.

          Nothing stated herein be taken as an expression of opinion.

          Since it is an old case we would request the State Commission to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of four months of date of appearance.