PER MR. SURESH CHANDRA, MEMBER Petitioners herein are the legal heirs of the deceased complainant G. Venkataswamy. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order dated 16.11.2005 passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (tate Commissionfor short) by which the State Commission has allowed the appeal of the opposite party, respondents herein, setting aside the order dated 21.11.2003 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Srikakulam in C.D. No.94/2000 (istrict Forumfor short) allowing the consumer complaint of the deceased complainant, petitioners have filed this revision petition challenging the impugned order. The facts of the case even though fully mentioned in the orders of the fora below are required to be reiterated to the extent that it is necessary for the purpose of deciding this petition. 2. G. Venkataswamy was the owner of the fishing vessel TL-CPL-SC-C-SLVPADPT-413 (hereinafter described as VPT boat for short). This VPT boat was insured with the OP/respondent Insurance Company to cover total loss/constructive loss including salvage, crew and labour charges and expenses incurred in connection with the losses. The boat was insured for a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- for the period from 31.07.1987 to 30.07.1988 and a premium of Rs.4704.50/- was paid under receipt dated 31.07.1987. The boat was taken to sea on 07.01.1988 in the nearby Kalingapatnam coast area at about 3.00 a.m. when the right side of the boat wire broke and the boat sunk and the crew also fell in the sea though the crew could be rescued by some fellow fishermen present and fishing at the time of the incident. The incident of sinking of the boat was reported by the owner complainant to the opposite party and others including the various concerned authorities on 08.01.1988 itself. In spite of the salvage operations, which continued till 24.01.1988, the sunken boat could not be traced. The A.P. State Financial Corporation, Visakhapatnam also informed the OP Insurance Co. about the sinkage of the boat belonging to the complainant. The OP Insurance Co. by its letter dated 08.07.1988 sent claim forms to the complainant for submitting his insurance claim amount which were sent by the deceased complainant to the OP Insurance Co. but he did not receive the insured amount in spite of repeated reminders and in the meanwhile, the original complainant G. Venkataswamy expired on 10.05.1991. The eight petitioners herein consist of widow of the deceased complainant and his children. The widow of the deceased complainant who is the first petitioner now is reported to be an illiterate lady and the background of the family is one of poor people. Because of the death of the original complainant, the matter regarding the insurance claim appears to have remained dormant and without further action by the widow and other members of the family. However, suddenly one day in July,1998 during the course of search of personal effects in the house, they came across some papers pertaining to the insurance claim in respect of the VPT boat in question lodged by the late G. Venkataswamy. Since the insurance claim had not been paid by the OP Insurance Co., the widow of the complainant approached the OP Insurance Co. for releasing of the insurance amount of Rs.1,30,000/- along with interest @ 24% p.a. w.e.f. 08.01.1998. The OP Insurance Co., however, asked the petitioners to get orders from the court for payment of the claim amount. Having failed to get the insurance claim settled by the OP Company, the petitioners knocked the doors of the District Forum to pass an award in their favour and against the opposite party directing it to pay Rs.1,30,000/- towards policy amount along with interest @ 24% p.a. along with cost and any other relief as considered appropriate. Since the petitioners filed a consumer dispute with the District Forum on 12.08.1998, they also filed application dated 12.01.1988 for condonation of delay of 30 days in filing the complaint. The District Forum registered the complaint subject to objection with regard to maintainability of the complaint by the legal heirs and on the point of limitation and issued notice to the OP Company. The OP Company resisted the complaint on the ground that the same is not maintainable as it is hit by limitation under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. It was also submitted on behalf of the opposite party that as per their Home Rules, which are specific official guidelines of the OP Company, vide chapter 13, Rules 72 and as per section 209 of the Companies Act, the policy registered by the OP Company is required to be kept by the Company for not more than 8 years. It is also provided that no claim intimation register, policy bags, dockets or files and cover note registers will be destroyed after five years which under rule 74 of the said chapter, cover notes, certificates, policy endorsement copies, marine bill copies will be destroyed after three years. In the circumstances, the OP Company submitted that it was unable to confirm about the insurance policy in question and in the absence of such policy, the opposite party denied its liability to pay any compensation to the complainants. Besides this, the cause of action arose in 1987 whereas the original complainant died in the year 1991. Thus, five years have elapsed without any action. Since the deceased complainant did not approach the court of law of the consumer forum before 1991, the OP Company cannot be made liable for deficiency in service on their part. 3. The District Forum condoned the delay in filing the consumer complaint by the petitioners but this order of the District Forum was not challenged by the OP Company through an appeal. Thereafter, the District Forum on the basis of the documents produced, evidence put fourth and the averments made by the two parties, passed an award in favour of the petitioners and against the OP Insurance Co. directing the opposite party to pay Rs.1,30,000/- towards policy amount together with interest @ 12% p.a. from 12.08.1998 till the date of realization and to pay Rs.1,000/- towards litigation expenses to be shared equally by the petitioners. This order of the District Forum which was passed on 21.11.2003 was challenged by the OP Company before the State Commission which allowed the appeal by its impugned order and hence the present revision petition. 4. The petitioners have raised the following issues through the petition for our consideration while challenging the impugned order:- . Whether the Honle State Consumer Forum is justified in reversing the order of the District Consumer Forum on the ground of limitation when the Honle District Consumer Forum on consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case came to a conclusion that there is no delay in filing the Consumer Disputes and the said finding was not challenged before the State Consumer Forum? II. Whether the Honle State Consumer Forum is justified in reversing a finding with regard to condonation of delay in filing the complaint when the District Consumer Forum in the exercise of its discretion considered the case and condoned the delay? III. Whether the Honle State Consumer Forum is justified in reversing the order of the District Consumer Forum in the facts and circumstances of the case where the petitioners are innocent, illiterate and poor people and admittedly the fishing vessel of the deceased -Venkataswamy was insured and it was lost during the period of validity of the insurance policy? 5. The petitioners have assailed the impugned order of the State Commission on the following grounds:- (i) The State Commission erred in coming to the conclusion that the complaint filed by the petitioners is barred by limitation without noticing and answering the detailed reasons given by the District forum while holding that the complaint is not barred by limitation. (ii) The deceased complainant who had insured the VPT boat had filed the claim during his lifetime but the same was not settled by the respondent and it was neither repudiated nor paid and hence the limitation did not start during the pendency of the claim with the respondent Company. (iii) In view of the ground no.2, the cause of action could arise only after the issuance of the registered notice by the petitioners in the month of July, 1998 when they discovered the details about the pendency of the insurance claim with the respondent Company. (iv) The State Commission erred in observing that the petitioner no.1 came to know about the rejection of the claim in the 1st week of April, 1992. (v) Since the respondent Company did not challenge the finding of the District Forum regarding the aspect of limitation, the State Commission ought not to have dismissed the complaint on this ground alone while allowing the appeal of the respondent Company. (vi) The State Commission failed to consider that the plea about the non-availability of record with the respondent Company was not correct since the respondent Company was bound to keep the records of the case in question keeping in view of the pendency of the claim submitted by the deceased original complainant. (vii) In the face of detailed reasons having been given by the District Forum in favour of the limitation aspect and deficiency in service on the part of the respondent Company, the State Commission erred in reversing the findings of the District Forum by its impugned order. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondent Company. We have also carefully considered the submissions made by the two parties as placed on the record. We have noted that the District Forum has condoned the delay in filing of the consumer dispute by the legal heirs of the deceased complainant and has given detailed reasoning in respect of limitation aspect in the matter holding that the complaint was not barred by limitation as contended by the opposite party. In any case, it is not disputed that the finding of the District Forum was not challenged by the OP Company before the State Commission. In this view of the matter, when the main appeal in question came to be filed by the OP Company before the State Commission challenging the order dated 21.11.2003 of the District Forum, the State Commission ought to have appreciated that the District Forum has passed a detailed and well-reasoned order both in respect of aspect of limitation as well as on merits while allowing the consumer complaint of the petitioners. We have gone through the impugned order and the order passed by the District Forum and we are convinced that the view taken by the District Forum in regard to the limitation period was correct. Admittedly, insurance claim lodged by the deceased complainant was still pending with the OP Insurance Co. A surveyor was also appointed in the matter and documentary evidence had been produced by the petitioners before the District Forum in this regard. It is not disputed that the OP Insurance Co. did not repudiate the insurance claim lodged by the deceased complainant during his lifetime. In the face of such undisputed facts, the District Forum was absolutely justified in holding that the complaint was not barred by limitation. The plea taken by the respondent Insurance Co. regarding destruction of the insurance records as per their internal manual cannot be accepted as a valid plea for denying the claim of the petitioners. Whatever be the internal instructions in this regard, if any organization indulges in destroying the records of a matter which is still pending and is not settled or in respect of which a court case is going on, it does so on its own risk and the same cannot be a valid ground for rejection or denial for an otherwise legitimate claim. Other relevant aspects regarding the insurance cover and validity thereof on the date of the incident, the incident itself, lodging of the claim, etc. have been suitably and amply dealt with by the District Forum in its detailed order and we do not wish to reiterate the same here. In fact, we find from the memo of appeal of the OP Co., a copy of which is placed at Annexure-C of the paper book, that the OP Insurance Co. has hardly given any convincing reason in its favour while challenging the order of the District Forum before the State Commission. Nothing further has been placed by the respondent Company before us which would support its case. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are convinced that the complaint filed by the petitioners was not barred by limitation and the State Commission erred in setting aside the well-reasoned order passed by the District Forum in favour of the complainants. The impugned order of the State Commission, therefore, cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. Revision petition filed by the petitioners, therefore, stands allowed and the impugned order is hereby set aside with no order as to costs.