1.   This appeal under section 19 of the Act 1986 is in challenge to the Order dated 26.02.2019 of the State Commission in complaint no. 23 of 2019.

2.   We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants (the ‘complainants’) and for the respondents (the ‘insurance co.’) and have perused the record including inter alia the impugned Order dated 26.02.2019 of the State Commission and the memorandum of appeal.

3.   The State Commission has dismissed the complaint in limine. The gist of its examination as contained in para 3 of its Order is being reproduced below for reference:

3. As per the contentions made by the learned counsel for the complainants, the office of the insurer is situated at Panipat, Haryana as the insurance policy was obtained from Panipat and the address of the complainant mentioned in the insurance policy was at Panipat, but, this Commission is not properly perused this as to why there were circumstances to insure the premises or the education building which is situated in Bihar and the insurance policy has been obtained from Panipat, it appears that there is a malafide intention and ulterior motive on the part of the complainants to extract the amount of the compensation.   It is a natural phenomenon that if the premises situated in the State of Bihar, there was no legal impediment to obtain the insurance policy from the state of Bihar itself.  It is not a fit case and not to issue the notice of motion to the O.Ps.  Hence, the complaint is dismissed in limine.

4.    The complainants had filed a complaint alleging ‘deficiency in service’ and ‘unfair trade practice’ on the part of the insurance co. The State Commission has refused to admit the complaint on ground that since the “premises or the education building” are “situated in Bihar” and the policy was “obtained from Panipat” therefore “it appears that there is a malafide intention and ulterior motive on the part of the complainants to extract the amount of the compensation”. We fail to understand this logic. The insurance co. voluntarily issued the policy from Panipat. Both parties did not deem it awkward that the subject policy was issued from Panipat. Without examining the facts or the merits, and even without any such objection being taken by the insurance co. itself, drawing a surmise of “malafide intention” and “ulterior motive” to “extract - - - compensation” and dismissing the complaint in limini is totally erroneous and untenable. Allegations of ‘deficiency in service’ and ‘unfair trade practice’ had been made in writing (refer section 2(1)(c) of the Act 1986). The State Commission in the normal course ought to have admitted the complaint and referred it to the opposite party insurance co. directing it to give its version of the case (refer section 13(2) of the Act 1986), rather than dismissing it on such misplaced logic.

5.       As such the impugned Order dated 26.02.2019 of the State Commission is set aside and the case is remanded back to the State Commission with the direction that it shall admit the complaint and shall direct the opposite party insurance co. to file its version within the prescribed period and shall proceed further to decide the case on merit as per the law in the normal wont. The rival sides are directed to appear before the State Commission on 27.04.2023. 

6.    The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the parties in the appeal and to their learned counsel immediately. It is also requested to send a copy of this Order to the State Commission by the fastest mode available. The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.