1.                Heard the Authorized Representative of  the Appellant as well as the learned Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2. None is present on behalf of Respondent No.3.

2.                Authorized Representative of the Appellant states that the appellant had purchased a vehicle (dumper) and the vehicle was insured for about Rs.18 lakhs and the vehicle met with an accident. The vehicle was brought to the authorized dealer’s workshop, who issued an estimate of about 80% of the IDV. However, the Insurance Company appointed a Surveyor who assessed the loss to be Rs.3.84 lakhs, though learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 states that the Surveyor had assessed the loss for about Rs.4.31 lakhs. The Insurance Company has paid Rs.2 lakhs to Respondent No.3/Financer as advance as the vehicle was hypothecated with the Financer..However, the Complainant is not aware about the repair of the vehicle. He further states that his Complaint was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 18.03.2014 by the State Commission as the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Complainant could not appear on that date. Miscellaneous application No.871/2018 was filed before the State Commission stating that the Complainant came to know about the dismissal of the Complaint only in September, 2014 and he submitted before the State Commission that the case may be considered and amended relief may be granted. The State Commission dismissed the miscellaneous application on the ground that the State Commission does not have the power of review of its order. Hence, the present Appeal has been filed.

3.       Authorized Representative of the Appellant states that he has merit in his case and the Complainant has suffered huge losses, which he is entitled to get from the Respondents and, therefore, his Complaint should be decided on merits.

4.       Learned Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 (Insurance Company) states that the Surveyor had assessed the loss of Rs.4.31 lakhs and Rs.2 lakhs have already been paid. As no bills have been submitted to the Insurance Company, further amount has not been paid. She further states that the order of dismissal dated 18.03.2014 has not been specifically challenged in the present Appeal and, therefore, no relief can be granted in the present Appeal to the Appellant.

5.       We have carefully considered the arguments advanced by both the parties and have examined the record. A perusal of miscellaneous application No.871/2018 shows that the Complainant had mentioned that the Complaint was dismissed on 18.03.2014 by the State Commission and, therefore, he requested that his case should be considered and also requested for amended relief to be granted to the Complainant. The husband of the complainant who has argued the matter states that this application was given by the husband of the Complainant and not by a Counsel and was not worded in a legally sound manner. The contents of the miscellaneous application imply that this application was filed for restoring the case as well as granting the amended relief. Miscellaneous Application was rightly dismissed by the State Commission as the State Commission has no power of review of its order in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Hitendra Pathak &Ors. vs. AchyutKashinathKarekar&Anr. reported in (2011) 9 SCC 541.6

6.       We are convinced that the matter requires final adjudication as the Complainant has suffered huge loss due to accident of her vehicle and the claim against the Respondents must be finally adjudicated on merits. In the interest of justice, therefore, we set aside the order dated 18.03.2014 of the State Commission and remand the matter back to the State Commission for deciding the Complaint on merits.

8.       Parties to appear before the State Commission on 08.01.2021.