We have heard learned counsel Mr. Satish Kumar, holding brief for Mr. Mukund Sharma, Advocate. He undertakes to file memo of appearance today and if necessary Vakalatanama within a period of one week. Both the counsels, for the contesting parties, point out that there is confusion created in the mind of the President and Member of the State Commission, Delhi in respect of the nature of two different transactions enumerated under two different complaints. It appears that the complainant alleged that consignment was dispatched to Beja (Tunisia) on 16.08.1995. The purpose of such consignment was that the handicraft and artifact items shall be made available for sale during exhibition, which was scheduled between 25.08.1995 to 10.9.1995 in that city. The complainant further alleged that a part of the consignment reached there on 06.9.1995 whereas another part ultimately reached there on 10.9.1995. The case of the complainant therefore, was that due to delay in delivery, the goods not be sold in the exhibition and there was loss caused to him. So far as the another complaint filed by complainant vide Complaint No.78 of 1996 is concerned, the complainant alleged that the goods were consigned to reach Monsteir (Tunisia) for sale in the exhibition which was to commence from 6.9.1995 and the goods were required to reach at Monsteir on 5.9.1995 as per instructions in order to facilitate the complainant to do the business of sale at that exhibition. The case of the complainant further was that actually the consignment reached there on 12.9.1995 and therefore it was of no avail to him. For, the exhibition period was over. Neither he could get the consignment in the custody nor could the sale be effected in accordance with the local laws. Therefore, he was put to loss. Both the counsel for the parties state that there was confusion created in the mind of the learned President and the Member of the State Commission as it is recorded on para 12 of the impugned order. The State Commission observed:- “The goods were booked through OP No.3 on 16.08.1995 whereas the Airway bill shows that these were given to the OP1 and 2 on 01-09-1995. The delivery was given on 12-09-1995.” By consent of the learned counsel for the parties and in order to put the facts of both the cases straight, the impugned common order of the State Commission is set aside. The appeals are allowed. The matters are remitted to the State Commission for giving afresh finding on the issues involved and by giving clear statement of the facts, separately, in respect of both the complaint cases and on appreciation of the evidence adduced by the parties. The parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 22.07.2011. The State Commission may fix a date and shall endevour to dispose of both the complaint cases within reasonable period of three (3) months after hearing the parties afresh and having afresh look to the facts and the questions involved. | 
