PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners/complainants against the order dated 07.08.2012 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana (in short, he State Commission in Appeal No. 12 of 2012 The Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. Lucky Mittal & Anr. by which, while allowing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was set aside. 2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner got his vehicle Toyata Qualis HR-51-J-0537 insured from OP/respondent for a period of one year commencing from 15.7.2006 to 14.7.2007. On the intervening night of 15/16.4.2007, vehicle was stolen and FIR was lodged. Intimation was given to OP. Required documents were submitted to OP, but OP repudiated claim. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that as vehicle has been recovered by police, the claim was not payable and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties, allowed complaint and directed OP to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as value of the vehicle and Rs.5,000/- for mental harassment along with 6% p.a. interest. Appeal filed by the OP was allowed by learned District Forum vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties at admission stage and perused record. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that first complaint was filed within limitation; even then, learned State Commission has committed error in allowing appeal and dismissing complaint on the ground that complaint was time barred; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law, which does not call for any interference; hence, revision petition be dismissed. 5. Perusal of record reveals that insured vehicle was stolen on 15/16.4.2007 and claim was repudiated by OP on 3.5.2008. Complainant filed first complaint on 23.5.2008. Complainant moved application before District forum on 27.9.2010 and prayed that on technical grounds he wants to withdraw the complaint and he may be permitted to file fresh complaint. On the same day, learned District forum dismissed complaint as withdrawn in view of the submission of Counsel for the complainant. Later on, complainant filed present complaint on 23.11.2010, which was held to be barred by limitation by learned State Commission. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as first complaint was filed within period of limitation and that complaint was withdrawn with permission to file fresh complaint; hence, subsequent complaint filed on 23.11.2010 is well within limitation. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that as per order dated 27.9.2010 permission was not granted to the complainant to file fresh complaint; hence, subsequent complaint filed on 23.11.2010 cannot be constituted a complaint filed with permission. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on AIR 2009 SC 806 Vimlesh Kumari Kulshrestha Vs. Sambhajirao & Anr. in which it was observed as under: n application for withdrawal of suit was made, seeking liberty to file a fresh suit. The order passed by the court was that ’The application is, therefore, allowed while permitting the plaintiff to withdraw the suit’. It was held that this should be construed as an order also granting liberty, as prayed. The court cannot split the prayer made by the applicant." 8. In the light of aforesaid citation, it becomes clear that District Forum allowed complainant to withdraw the complaint and impliedly permitted complainant to file fresh complaint and subsequent complaint dated 23.11.2010, in compliance to order dated 27.9.2010 cannot be treated a fresh complaint as first complaint was filed on 23.5.2008 well within limitation from the date of repudiation and learned State Commission has committed error in allowing appeal and dismissing complaint being barred by limitation. 9. In the light of aforesaid discussion, revision petition is to be allowed and matter has to be remanded back to learned State Commission for deciding appeal on other grounds submitted in Memo of Appeal. 10. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated 7.8.2012 passed by the learned State Commission in Appeal No. 12 of 2012 Lucky Mittal & Anr. Vs. Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd. is set aside and matter is remanded back to learned State Commission to decide the matter fresh after giving an opportunity of being heard to both the parties treating complaint within limitation. 11. Parties are directed to appear before Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Panchkula on 23.9.2013