Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 26.03.10 passed by the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in complaint case no. 53/05. By the impugned order, the State Commission has partly allowed the complaint filed by the respondent herein and passed the following order/directions:- ..2.. “i) The complaint of complainant is partially allowed. ii) The opponent shall pay Rs.3,45,000/- at the rate of 9% from 10.02.99 till realization of amount . iii) The opponent shall pay towards costs of complaint Rs.10,000/-.” 2. The complaint before the State Commission was filed seeking claim of Rs.7,40,000/- plus compensation etc. alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party insurance company in not settling the insurance claim arising out of an insurance policy which the complainant had taken to cover the peril of his offset printing press and stock lying therein. The complaint was resisted by the insurance company on variety of grounds and one of the grounds was that the insurance did not cover the peril in question and in any case no intimation about the peril was given to the insurance company in terms of clause 6 (1) of the terms and condition of the policy and there was unusual delay of 5 months in giving the said intimation. The State Commission, gong by the respective pleas, evidence and material produced on record and largely guided by the allegations made by the complainant in the complaint, allowed the complaint in the above manner. 3. We have heard Mr. K.L. Nandwani, learned counsel for the appellant ..3.. insurance company but had not the advantage of hearing the say of the respondent as they remained unrepresented on record despite due service of notice. Mr. Nandwani would assail the impugned order passed by the State Commission primarily on the following grounds:- i) The impugned order suffers from jurisdictional error in as much as the hearing of the complaint was completed before a Bench comprising of Mr. G.A. Ahuja, Judicial Member and Mr. Bharat H. Joshi, Member on 21.01.10 and orders reserved by the said Bench, however the final order (impugned order) came to be passed by a Bench of different constitution, namely Mr. N.A Acharya, Judicial Member and Mr. Bharat H. Joshi, Member. He states at the bar that another Presiding Member namely, N.A Achraya, who delivered the impugned order was not a party to the Bench which finally heard the matter and the newly constituted Bench which rendered the impugned order did not hear the matter before render the order which has resulted into mis-carriage of justice and in any case prejudiced the appellant. ii) Though a specific plea in regard to clause 6 (1) of the terms and conditions of the policy was raised in the ..4.. written version which was also the ground for repudiation of the claim and non-appointment of the surveyor, still the State Commission has not dealt with the same in detail. 4. We have considered the matter in its entirety. Since both the contentions raised by the appellant insurance company go to the very root of the matter, we are of the view that it is a fit case where the appeal should be allowed, impugned order be set aside and the complaint be remitted back to the State Commission for deciding it afresh in accordance with law after affording due opportunity of hearing to the parties. 5. In the result, the appeal is allowed, impugned order is set aside and the complaint is remitted back to the State Commission for deciding the same afresh in the above manner. Parties shall appear before the State Commission on 8.11.10 for receiving further directions in the matter. The State Commission shall decide the matter as expeditiously as it may be practicable to do.