Complainant/appellant which is engaged in trading of commodities and food grains insured the cargo with the respondents under various business guard commercial and Standard Fire and Special Perils Policies covering the risk against storm, tempest, floor, inundation, subsidence, and landslide. The said cargo was received by the appellant by rail/road and stored in various open plots of Vishakhapatnam pending its shipment. The said cargo was adequately covered and protected by tarpaulin. Prior to string the cargo was protected by tarpaulin to ensure that the cargo was not in any manner affected by ground moisture conditions. The appellant had also laid HDPE tarpaulins and unloaded the cargo thereon. Although the stocks were properly and adequately covered and secured form all sides, due to unseasonal heavy rains on 13-02-2007, the location where the said cargo was stored suffered heavy water logging and inundation affected the entire bottom layer of the said cargo. The appellant immediately notified the respondent on 14/15th Febraruy, 2007 about the loss and damage occurred due to aforesaid reasons. The respondent appointed Shri B.N. Murty as surveyor, who submitted his report on 19th July, 2007 stating, isakhapatnam was affected by an unseasonal rain on 13-02-2007 and some low lying areas were affected due to stagnation of rain water. Certain packets of port area were also affected by this rain. The rainfall and other parameters recorded from 12-02-2007 to 15-02-2007 at Visakhapatnam and at Vishakhapatnam Airport reveals that there is 9 mm. at the most. 2. The State Commission without issuing notice the respondent dismissed the complaint by observing thus: n our view rain fall of 9 mm. cannot be termed as a case where loss was due to inundation. The reason given by the insurance company appears to be sound. The complainant has failed to make prima facie a case of deficiency in service on the part of the OP. 3. The State Commission being authority acting under the Act could not give following recommendations to the Government, who amend Act or the Rules, by observing: n view of this we recommend to the Government to amend the Act or the Rules to the extent that wherever compensation sought is more than Rs.5,00,000/- barring the cases of medical negligence as in such cases poor people suffer at the hands of doctors immensely as some times patient dies and sometimes becomes vegetable, he shall be called upon to pay the ad valorem fees or some reasonable percentage as is paid by way of civil suits. 4. From the reading of the order it seems that the State Commission dismissed the complaint only because the appellant claim was Rs.65 lakhs. Without issuing any notice and recording any evidence, the State Commission dismissed the complaint at the preliminary stage by making some general observations without permitting the appellant to prove his case that the loss of the cargo stored goods was due to inundation and cover under the policy. The appellant should have been permitted to prove his case. 5. For the reasons stated above, the order under appeal cannot be sustained and the same is set aside. The case is remitted back to the State Commission to decide afresh in accordance with the law. 6. Parties and their counsel are directed to appear before the State Commission on 21-11-2012. 7. Since it is an old case, we would request the State Commission to dispose of the complaint as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six months from the date of appearance after permitting the respondent to file its written statement and the parties to lead their evidence in support of their respective cases. All contentions are left open. Nothing stated in the impugned order or our order as an expression of opinion.