With the consent of the counsel for the parties, this Revision Petition is taken up for final disposal.

          Delay of 57 days in filing the Revision Petition is condoned.

          Respondent/complainant is a licensed pawn broker and had insured gold and silver jewels pledged with it along with other valuables by obtaining insurance policy from the petitioner insurance company.  On 23.11.1999, the business premises of the respondent was ransacked by the unknown persons and burglary was committed and the complainant suffered a loss of about Rs.20 lakh.  Complainant informed the insurance company about the same and lodged his claim.  Police also gave ‘untraced’ report.  Respondent approached the insurance Ombudsman for settlement of the claim.  Petitioner repudiated the claim on the following grounds :

“The modus operandi alleged to be adopted for commission, if any, of theft as alleged is not convincing.  Severl aspects do not reveal the possibility of theft by house breaking.  Your claim is not substantiated by material facts, nor is it conclusively proved.”

          Aggrieved by this, respondent filed complaint before the District Forum.  District Forum, vide its order dated 12.8.2005, dismissed the complaint on the ground that summary procedure adopted by the consumer fora is not sufficient to decide the issues involved and only an elaborate trial procedure adopted by the Civil Courts can sort-out the issues involved in the complaint.

          Being aggrieved, complainant filed an appeal before the State Commission.  State Commission came to the conclusion that the dispute between the parties could be decided by the consumer fora.  Accordingly, it set aside the order of the District Forum and proceeded to decide the complaint itself.

          Insurance company, being aggrieved, has filed the present Revision Petition.

          Mr.Kishore Rawat, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner insurance company contends that the State Commission has committed an error in deciding the complaint itself.  Proper procedure would have been to set aside the order of the District Forum and remand the case to the District Forum to decide the complainant in accordance with law after permitting the parties to lead their evidence.

          We agree with the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.  Complaint had been rejected by the District Forum at the threshold without giving an opportunity to the parties to lead evidence as per provisions of Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act.  State Commission, without taking any affidavit by way of evidence, allowed the complaint.  Proper course for the State Commission would have been to set aside the order of the District Forum and remand the case to the District Forum for deciding the complaint in accordance with law after affording due opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence. 

Evidently, the order of the State Commission is wrong.  The same is set aside to the extent it decides the dispute on merits.  Its order, as regards the maintainability of the complaint, is upheld.  Accordingly, the case is remitted back to the District Forum to decide the complaint filed by the respondent in accordance with law after affording due opportunity to both the parties to lead their evidence.

Parties through their respective counsel are directed to appear before the District Forum on 26^th August 2009.

Since the complaint in the present case was filed in the year 2005, we would request the District Forum to decide the complaint on priority basis.

District Forum shall decide the case without being influenced by any of the observations made by the State Commission in its order.

While issuing the Notice, we had directed the petitioner to deposit 50% of the amount awarded by the State Commission with the District Forum with a direction to the District Forum to invest the same in a Fixed Deposit Receipt.  Petitioner would be at liberty to withdraw the said amount along with accrued interest.