Aggrieved by the concurrent findings and orders passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jaipur and thereafter order dated 15.04.2011 in FA No. 383/2009 passed by Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short he State Commission the insurance company has filed the present petition under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner / insurance company and the respondent in person and have considered their submissions. The consumer dispute raised in the complaint was relating to the non-settlement of the insurance claim in respect of an insured vehicle which met with an accident. The claim having been repudiated primarily on the ground that the insurable interest in the vehicle continued to be in the name of the original owner, namely, Gajananand Aggarwal and it has not been transferred in the name of the complainant before the date of the peril or within the stipulated period as per the terms and conditions of the policy and as required under section 159 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The District Forum on the strength of the material brought on record, particularly, letter dated 8.03.2006 and thereafter letter dated 20.03.2006 issued by the original owner and the complainant respectively to the Branch Manager of the Insurance Company took the view that the complainant had duly approached the insurance company for the transfer of the policy in his favour within the prescribed period and, therefore, the repudiation of the claim was not justified and it amount to deficiency in service. The State Commission without even discussing the fact or the point involved, has simply dismissed the appeal by means of a cryptic and non-speaking order. 2. Mr. Shalabh Singhal, learned counsel for the petitioner would assail the impugned order primarily on the ground that the Fora below have failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case and the material brought on record in its correct prospective inasmuch as despite a specific plea of the Insurance Company that no letter / request for transfer of the insurable interest was received either from the original owner or the complainant prior to 29.03.2006 still the Fora below held that the complainant had applied for the transfer of insurance within the prescribed period. In support of his contention, he has placed on record, the envelop in which the letters had been sent by the complainant and his predecessor to the insurance company, bearing certain postal stamps / dates, etc. which we have allowed to filed subject to a cost of Rs.5,000/- to be paid to the respondent. In our view, the matter has not received the kind of consideration which it deserved at the ends of the Fora below which has resulted into miscarriage of justice. To undo that it is necessary that the matter be remanded back to the District Forum for deciding the complaint afresh after taking into account all the relevant facts and circumstances, evidence and material brought on record. 3. The revision petition is partly allowed and the orders passed by the Fora below are set aside and the complaint is remanded back to the board of the District Forum for afresh decision in accordance with law. Parties will be free to lead additional documents if they so desire. Parties are directed to appear before the District Forum on 16.04.2012 to receive further directions.