PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER These revision petitions have been filed by the petitioner against impugned order dated 07-03-2013 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh (in short, he State Commission in Appeal Nos. 435/2012 & 03/2013 Prof. Arun K. Lall vs. Financial/Insurance Advisor, ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. & Prof. Arun K. Lall vs. M/s ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., by which both the appeals were partly allowed and order of learned District Forum allowing complaint was modified. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant, in the year 2007, had subscribed for three different policies by filling up the proposal forms. On the advice of the agents of the Opposite Parties, Mr. Atul Vij and Mr. Amit Rai, who were having the company I.D. Cards to prove their identity and status in the organization, complainant/respondent preferred to invest Rs. 3 lacs by subscribing for three insurance policies in the name Life State RP (2 Nos) and one Life State Pension. Complainant/respondent paid an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/-, in total, and the policies were issued in his name on 04/09/2007, 22/09/2007 and 31/12/2007 respectively. As per the assurances of the Opposite parties, the said insurance policies were to fetch 20-25% returns. When the complainant did not find anything concrete, he contacted the agents, and enquired about the status of the policies. Complainant/respondent received an e-mail dated 13/01/08, whereby a brief detail of the high returns to the tune of 20-25%, on the fund was provided to him. Complainant thereafter continuously remained in touch with the Agents, reminding them, about the commitment and also registering his grievance. It was further stated that on not getting a proper response, from that end, and finally feeling disgusted, the complainant once again mentioned that no complete information was forthcoming as mentioned in Appendix-VII dated 10/08/2009. It was further stated that the complainant was advised that in order to maintain the quantum of profit, he must pay the premium amount due against him, as the policies were nearing renewal for the 2nd premium and was also advised to cancel one of the policies, so as to meet the requirements of fresh policy, as he had expressed difficulty in arranging money. It was further stated that the complainant did not wish to continue with the different policies, to which he had subscribed, on the advice of the Opposite Parties, but under compelling circumstances, he preferred to revive the same. It was further stated that even after completing all the formalities for reviving these policies, no response was forthcoming from the Opposite Parties. Alleging deficiency on the part of the opposite party, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. Opposite party resisted complaint and submitted that first policy was in force whereas policy no. 06174600 was foreclosed and policy no. 07219597 was in a paid up status. It was further submitted that the policy certificate along with policy documents, in original, were dispatched to the complainant and the same was duly received by him. It was further stated that the investments in the units were subject to market and other risks and, thus, there could not be any assurance, with regard to the objective of any of the funds that they might achieve. It was further stated that the document (Appendix-IV) of the complaint was not an authorized communication issued by the Company, as it did not bear the company seal or name of an authorized signatory. It was further submitted that allegations in the complaint were required to be tried by Civil Court and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed opposite party to release Rs. 2 lakh illegally retained, with interest @ 9% p.a. and further allowed Rs. 1 lakh as compensation on account of deficiency in service. Both the parties filed appeal before State Commission and learned State Commission vide impugned order allowed both the appeals partly and enhanced quantum and modified order and directed Opposite Party to pay Rs.3 lakhs and Rs.25,000/- for deficiency in service and kept intact order of the District Forum allowing Rs.2 lakh to be returned by the Opposite Party to the complainant, against which these revision petitions have been filed. 3. Petitioner filed application for condonation of delay of 37 days along with revision petition. As there is delay of only 37 days in filing revision petition, application is allowed for the reasons mentioned in the application and delay of 37 days in filing revision petition stands condoned. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent in person and perused record. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that learned State Commission committed error in dismissing the application for taking additional documents on record, hence revision petitions be allowed and impugned order be set aside and matter may be remanded back for decision after considering aforesaid documents. Learned respondent submitted that learned State Commission rightly dismissed application and order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law, hence revision petitions be dismissed. 6. Perusal of written statement filed by opposite party before District Forum clearly reveals that opposite party mentioned in the written statement that company has received Standard Benefit Illustration (SBI) signed by the complainant wherein it demonstrates returns under the policy. At the end of Para 2, it was further mentioned that complainant took 8-10 switch over forms from the complainant and the complainant himself wanted a fund switch. 7. Opposite party/petitioner filed application before State Commission for adducing additional documents and submitted that due to misunderstanding of the appellant company with its counsel, documents which have been referred in the written statement could not be placed on record, so those documents may be taken on record. Learned State Commission dismissed this application vide impugned order and observed in Para 10, which run as under:-- rom the perusal of these documents, it is apparent that the same were in possession of the applicants/ appellants/Opposite Parties, during the pendency of the complaint, before the District Forum. However, the counsel for the applicants/appellants/Opposite Parties has not been able to show any plausible cause, as to why, these documents, were not placed before the District Forum. Therefore, the same cannot be admitted into evidence, now at the appellate stage. Accordingly, the application, for additional evidence, is dismissed. 8. No doubt these documents should have been filed by opposite party before District Forum but as these documents have been referred in the written statement filed before District Forum and there genuineness has not been assailed by respondent, for proper decision of the case, learned State Commission should have allowed the application and should have taken these documents on record. In the application before State Commission, opposite party has specifically mentioned that due to misunderstanding of the appellant company with its counsel, documents could not be placed before District Forum, which is necessary for deciding the real controversy between the parties. 9. We deem it appropriate to allow application for taking additional documents on record and as application is being allowed, matter is to be remanded back to learned State Commission to decide afresh after considering all these documents. 10. Consequently, revision petitions filed by the petitioner are allowed and impugned order dated 09-03-2013 passed by learned State Commission in Appeal Nos. 435/2012 & 03/2013 Prof. Arun K. Lall vs. Financial/Insurance Advisor, ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. & Prof. Arun K. Lall vs. M/s ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. is set aside and application filed by the petitioner before State Commission for taking additional documents on record is allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- to the respondent with an opportunity to the respondent to file additional documents in rebuttal. Leaned State Commission is directed to decide the appeal afresh after considering documents taken on record vide this application and documents, if any, filed by the respondent in rebuttal. 11. Parties are directed to appear before State Commission on 31.03.2014.