1.       This first appeal has been filed under Section 19 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 21.08.2019 passed in complaint no. 10 of 2015 by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal.   

2.       Learned counsel for the respondents is present. However, none appeared for the appellant / complainant. The appeal is pending since 2019. Considering that the ideal normative period for deciding an appeal as provided in section 19A of the Act 1986 (corresponding section 52 of the Act 2019) is 90 days from the date of its admission, we deem it just and appropriate to decide the matter on the basis of the record after hearing the learned counsel present and not to delay it any further, much more so in view of the nature of the impugned order and its narrow canvas.

3.       Heard the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the material on record, including the impugned Order dated 21.08.2019 of the State Commission, the grounds of the appeal as well as the application seeking condonation of delay.   

4.       The appeal has been filed with reported delay of 77 days.

However, in the interest of justice, considering the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay and in order to decide the matters on merit rather than to dismiss them on the threshold of limitation the delay is condoned.  

5.       Vide its Order of 21.08.2019 the State Commission has dismissed the complaint for non prosecution. The said Order is reproduced below for ready reference:

Ld. Advocate for the OP is present. Complainant, however, does not turn up not takes any step on repeated calls.  It appears, Complainant has not turned up before this Commission since 04.06.2018.  Clearly, it is not willing to proceed with the matter any further. In view of this, the case stands dismissed for non prosecution.          

6.       Briefly the appellant / complainant had obtained a marine cargo open policy from the respondent Insurance Company from 01/04/2013 to 31/03/2014 for a premium of Rs. 3,79,216/-. It is stated that the said policy was issued as per Institute Cargo Clause A, which, in other words mean that the said Policy was in the nature of an "All Risk" covering policy. It purported to cover any loss sustained by the appellant during course of transit of his goods to the buyer's place which may be located outside India. On 22/04/2013, the appellant sent a consignment of 848 boxes of goods having a gross weight of about 16,319.60 kg to the buyer's place which was in Turkey. However, only 637 boxes containing about 12,540 kg of goods reached at the destination. Thus there was a shortfall of about 211 boxes. The surveyor of Turkey, who was engaged by the respondent Insurance Company to assess the amount of loss, calculated the loss to be to the tune of US$ 3743.40. However, the said surveyor inter alia noted in his survey report that the seal of the consignment was intact and thus opined that the shortage did not occur during the course of marine transit from Kolkata to Istanbul Kumport. The respondent Insurance Company repudiated the insurance claim of the appellant on the ground of the surveyor's observation regarding the seal being intact and on his opinion of the loss not occurring during the course of marine transit. The Appellant contested this on the ground that the surveyor's observation and opinion could not be correct as the seal was opened multiple times for checking and verification prior to the consignment reaching its destination.

7.       The consumer complaint contains elaborate details which do not need to be reproduced at this stage. It transpires that on the date fixed in the State Commission neither the complainant nor its counsel appeared which resulted in the dismissal of the complaint in default.   

8.       This Commission at this stage does not propose to delve into or touch upon the merits of the case but considering the nature of the dispute and the overall facts and circumstances in their totality, it is felt just and conscionable that reasonable and sufficient opportunity be further provided to the complainant for adjudication of its complaint on merits as denying the same will leave him remediless.  

          Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has also been gracious enough to show fairness of approach and does not raise any serious objection if the matter is remanded back to be heard on merits. 

9.       As such, in the interest of justice, without making any observations on merits of the case  the Order dated 21.08.2019 of the State Commission is set aside and the complaint is restored to its original number before the State Commission. The complainant is sternly advised to conduct its case professionally before the State Commission

10.     The matter is remanded back to the State Commission with the direction to decide the matter on its merits in accordance with law after providing adequate opportunity to both the parties.  The parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 18.08.2023.  In case any of the parties does not appear on the date fixed the State Commission shall issue notice to it and proceed with the matter in accordance with law thereafter.

11.     The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to all parties in this appeal and to learned counsel for appellant as well to the State Commission within three days. The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.