PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 9.12.2013 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Complt. No. 53/2011 – Naveen Ashoka Tent House Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. by which, complaint was dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Complainant/appellant engaged in the business of tent, decoration, pandal, etc. were given contract by Neyveli Lignite Corporation for inauguration ceremony at Bikaner between 5.6.2010 to 7.6.2010 with the direction that Pandal may be erected latest by 3.6.2010. Contract was given for Rs.60 lakhs. It was further pleaded that complainant transported Pandal material through truck from Jaipur to Bikaner and Pandal was got erected at Bikaner. On 3.6.2010, insurance coverage was taken from OP/respondent. After complete erection Pandal was damaged on account of thunderstorm on 3.6.2010.. Complainant intimated to the OP, who appointed surveyor, who assessed loss of Rs. 43 lakhs and also assessed Rs.9 lakhs as value of salvage. OP inspite of notice has not remitted payment. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before State Commission. 3. OP resisted complaint and submitted that as per Meteorological Centre report, thunderstorm came on 2.6.2010 at 11.28 p.m. which continued upto 00.25 a.m. on 3.6.2010 and Pandal was damaged on that date, but by misrepresentation, complainant obtained insurance coverage from OP at Jaipur instead of Bikaner where Pandal was erected. OP also denied other allegations of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned State Commission after hearing both the parties dismissed complaint by impugned order against which, this appeal has been filed. 4. Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that inspite of proof of damage to the Pandal after taking insurance coverage, learned State Commission has committed error in dismissing complaint on short question without discussing other aspects ;hence, appeal be allowed and impugned order be set aside and matter may be remanded back to learned State Commission for deciding complaint on merits. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, appeal be dismissed. 6. It is not disputed that complainant obtained insurance coverage from OP for a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs on 3.6.2010 at 12.00 p.m. upto mid night of 8.6.2010. 7. Learned State Commission has dismissed complaint only on the short question that Pandal stood damaged before taking insurance coverage. Perusal of weather report reveals that there was thunderstorm at 25 kmph wind on 2.6.2010 at 11.20 p.m. which lasted upto 00.25 p.m. on 3.6.2010. Again, thunderstorm came on 3.6.2010 at 9.45 p.m. which lasted upto 11.50 p.m. accompanied with some rain from 10.55 p.m. to 11.12 p.m. Thus, it becomes clear that there was thunderstorm on 2.6.2010 as well on 3.6.2010 and there is nothing on record to suggest that Pandal stood damaged due to thunderstorm in the intervening night of 2.6.2010 and 3.6.2010 and in such circumstances, it cannot be said that complainant obtained insurance coverage from OP by misrepresentation after damage of Pandal and learned State Commission has committed error in dismissing complaint only on this point and impugned order is liable to be set aside. 8. Learned State Commission also observed that doubt is created on account of taking insurance coverage at Jaipur instead of Bikaner. Learned Counsel for appellant submitted that appellant’s Headquarter is at Jaipur; so, insurance coverage was obtained at Jaipur. Aforesaid submission makes it clear that appellant being situated at Jaipur had every right to obtain insurance coverage at Jaipur instead of Bikaner where Pandal was erected. Had there been any suspicion in the mind of OP, OP should have got inspected Pandal through its officers at Bikaner and only because insurance coverage was taken at Jaipur, it cannot be suspected that it was obtained after destruction of Pandal due to thunderstorm. 9. As learned State Commission has not considered other points in the impugned order, the matter is to be remanded back to learned State Commission to decide complaint afresh after giving an opportunity of being heard to the parties after treating damage to Pandal after obtaining insurance coverage. 10. Consequently, appeal filed by appellant is allowed and impugned order dated 9.12.2013 passed by the learned State Commission in Complt. No. 53/2011 – Naveen Ashoka Tent House Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. is set aside and matter is remanded back to learned State Commission to decide complaint in the light of aforesaid observation after giving an opportunity of being heard to the parties. 11. Parties are directed to appear before State Commission on 16.2.2017. | 
