ORDER JUSTICE V.R. KINGAONKAR, PRESIDING MEMBER We accept the explanation for condonation of the delay. It appears that the delay was unintentional. Hence, the delay stands condoned. 2. Both these appeals are being disposed of by the common order in view of the fact that they arise out of identical orders of the State Commission.3. Two separate complaints were filed before the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. One of the complaints was filed by appellant Sambasivan N. bore Complaint No. 47/2004 whereas complaint case was filed by Nannjundappa N. bore Complaint Case No. 48/2004. 4. It is not necessary to give details of the rival contentions and the pleadings. Suffice it to say that the complainant’s respective sons by name Ganesh aged about 17 years and Manjunath aged about 17 years were studying in Xth standard of the school run by the respondents. Admittedly, both of them along with other students had gone to a picnic organized by the respondents. Those two (2) young students died due to drowning in river Tungbhadra. The appellants filed complaints for compensation on the allegation that the students were not attended and no due care was taken while monitoring the visit to the temple and site seeing. 5. The complaints were dismissed by the State Commission on 17-03-2005 for the reason that affidavits were not filed by way of evidence by the complainants. The State Commission also observed that the opposite parties had also not filed any affidavit. The State Commission, therefore, came to the conclusion that both the parties were not interested in prosecuting the complaints. Hence, the complaints were dismissed. The appellants sought review of the orders by filing miscellaneous applications, which also were dismissed. Hence these appeals are filed. 6. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that dismissal of the complaint by cryptic order dated 17-03-2005 was not legal and proper. The State Commission should have proceeded to hear the complaints even without affidavits because the fact that both the young students lost lives during course of the unfortunate incident was not the subject matter of the dispute. In fact, it was for the respondents to show as to what care was taken while conducting the tour (picnic) for the students and how the unfortunate incident had occurred. The State Commission dismissed the complaint without considering the question of burden of proof. So also it was necessary to examine whether the respondent school had provided the service during the educational tour as a part of the education programme or that it was only a picnic arranged by the students themselves. 7. Considering the cryptic order passed by the State Commission, we are of the opinion that the approach of the State Commission was improper and incorrect. Hence both the appeals are allowed. The impugned orders are set aside. The matters are remitted to the State Commission with direction to restore the complaints. The parties are given liberty to file their affidavits and other evidence, if any, and thereafter complaints may be decided on merits. The parties shall appear before the State Commission on 09-01-2012. No costs. | 
