1.       This appeal has been filed under section 19 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) in challenge to the Order dated 16.12.2022 of the State Commission in complaint no. 22 of 2010.

2.       Heard the learned counsel for the appellant – complainant and learned counsel for the respondent – opposite parties and have perused the material on record including inter alia the impugned Order dated 16.12.2022 of the State Commission and the memorandum of appeal.

3.       The appeal has been filed with self-admitted delay of 83 days. 

Leaned counsel for the appellant draws attention to the reasons contained in the application for condonation of delay and requests for the delay to be condoned.

Learned counsel for the respondents opposes condonation.

However, in the interest of justice, inter alia having regard to the reasons contained in the application for condonation of delay, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

4.       The matter pertains to an insurance claim. In this case, the appellant had obtained  insurance policies.  During the subsistence of the policies, on 06.02.2010, the employees of Municipal Corporation, Bhopal damaged the premises illegally and also damaged the passenger cars, show room, laptops and also took away the valuable articles (insured) from the premises. The appellant lodged the FIR. The insurance company was informed. The insurance co. repudiated the claim of the appellant.

The appellant filed a complaint before the State Commission.

5.       Vide its Order of 16.12.2022 the State Commission has dismissed the complaint for want of prosecution in the absence of the complainant. The said Order is reproduced below for reference:

“16.12.2022

None for complainant.

Shri Deepesh Shukla, learned counsel for the opposite parties.

The complaint is pending since 15.07.2010. There is not request of application on behalf of complainant to adjourn the matter.

2.         Complaint is dismissed for want of prosecution.”

6.       Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he has a good case on merit and wants opportunity to present his case before the State Commission. Submission is that the appellant will prejudicially suffer irreparably if the complaint is not restored and it may eventually lead to complete miscarriage of justice leaving the appellant remediless and helpless. 

7.       Learned counsel for the opposite party submits that the appellant does not have a good case on merit. The State Commission has rightly dismissed the complaint for want of prosecution. Submission is that no interference is called for in the State Commission’s impugned Order.

8.       Having objectively and impartially considered the nature of the dispute and the overall facts and circumstances as are being borne out by the record, it is deemed to be just and conscionable that opportunity be provided to the complainant for getting the matter adjudicated on merit before the State Commission.

9.       This Commission is consciously refraining from detailing the facts or critiquing the matter since the dispute is as yet to be adjudicated on merit and it does not wish to in any manner colour the vision of the forum below.

10.     The Orders dated 16.12.2022 of the State Commission is set aside and the complaint is restored to its original number before the State Commission.

The appellant is advised to conduct his case with due diligence before the State Commission.

The parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 28.08.2024.

The State Commission is requested to adjudicate the complaint on its merits in accordance with the law, as early as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of first hearing before the State Commission on 28.08.2024.

11.     The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the parties and to their learned counsel immediately. It is also requested to forthwith send a copy of this Order to the State Commission by the fastest mode available.