Petitioner filed a complainant stating therein that he had insured his tractor with the respondent insurance company for the period from 29.11.2003 to 28.11.2004.  Said tractor met with an accident on 5.7.2004.  Complainant informed the petitioner, who appointed surveyor.  Surveyor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.1,05,969/-.  Petitioner, thereafter, lodged the claim with the insurance company, which was repudiated on the ground that one person was sitting on the left side of the mudguard of the tractor, which was in violation of the terms of the policy.  Aggrieved by this, the petitioner filed a complaint before the District Forum.

          District Forum, vide its order dated 20.3.2006, dismissed the complaint.  Petitioner, not being satisfied with the order passed by the District Forum, filed an appeal before the State Commission.  On three dates of hearing, i.e., 18.5.2006, 27.11.2006 and 6.8.2008, counsel for the petitioner did not appear and the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.  An application for restoration was filed on 22.9.2008.  The case was adjourned to 31.3.2009 in the presence of the counsel for the petitioner.  Even on 31.3.2009, the counsel for the petitioner was not present and the application for restoration was also dismissed for non-prosecution.  Thereafter, the petitioner filed another application for restoration, which has been dismissed by the impugned order.

          It would be seen that counsel for the petitioner did not appear on 3 dates of hearing at the first instance before the State Commission, which resulted in dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution.  The application for restoration was filed and the case was adjourned to 31.3.2009 in the presence of the counsel for the petitioner.  Still, he was not present.  State Commission was justified in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution.  No ground made out for restoration.  Dismissed.