1.       This appeal under section 19 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is in challenge to the Order dated 25.09.2017 of the State Commission in C.M.A. No. 414 of 2017 in complaint no. 28 of 2007 whereby the application of the complainant was allowed and the complaint was restored to its original number.

2.  We have heard learned counsel for the appellant – insurance company and learned proxy counsel for the respondent – complainant. We have also perused the material on record including inter alia the impugned Order dated 25.09.2017 of the State Commission and the memorandum of appeal.

3.       The appeal has been filed with self-admitted delay of 39 days (the Registry has reported 36 days delay). 

Leaned counsel for the appellant draws attention to the reasons contained in the application for condonation of delay and requests for the delay to be condoned.

Learned proxy counsel for the respondents opposes condonation.

However, in the interest of justice, and for the reasons contained in the application for condonation of delay, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

4.   The matter pertains to an insurance claim. The complainant obtained a standard Fire and Special Peril Policy from the insurance company for a sum insured of Rs. 15,00,00,000/-. The policy was valid from 22.03.2005 to 21.03.2006. During the subsistence of the policy, a fire occurred in the laboratory and plant, machinery, equipments, instruments and wiring, blower, chamber etc. were badly damaged. The complainant informed the insurance co. A surveyor was appointed by the insurance co. The insurance co. however repudiated the claim of the complainant. The complainant filed a complaint before the State Commission. Vide its Order of 24.07.2017 the State Commission dismissed the complaint for default.

5.   The complainant filed review application no. 414 of 2017 before the State Commission.

Thereafter vide its Order dated 25.09.2017 the State Commission allowed the application for restoration and restored the complaint to its original number.

Aggrieved by this Order, the insurance company filed the instant appeal before this Commission.

6.   Learned counsel for the appellant insurance company submits that the State Commission does not have jurisdiction to review its Order dated 24.08.2017 and in support of his argument, he has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Hitendra Pathak v. Achyut Kashinath Karekar, (2011) 9 SCC 541 wherein it was held that the State Commission do not have the power to review its own Order. Therefore, the Order passed by the State Commission is without jurisdiction and the same liable to be set aside.

7.   In view of the law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Hitendra Pathak(supra),  the appeal is allowed and the Order dated 25.09.2017 is set aside.