Petitioner/complainant, who is a Businessman of iron and steel, got his stock insured against theft and burglary with the respondent – insurance company for the period from 5.7.2000 to 4.7.2001.  Allegedly, a theft took place in the night of 30.11.2000 and round bars worth Rs.3,00,000/- were stolen for which an FIR was lodged  in the Police Station.  After investigation, Police submitted its final report with remarks ‘occurrence untrue’.  A protest petition was filed before A.C.J.M., Saraikela against the final report submitted by the Police which was accepted by the A.C.J.M. and cognizance was taken for offences under Section 461, 379 IPC against unknown.  Thereafter, petitioner lodged claim with the respondent, which was repudiated.   Being aggrieved, petitioner filed a complaint before the District Forum.

District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the respondent to pay Rs.2,50,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till realization. Rs.25,000/- were awarded as compensation for mental agony and litigation cost. 

Aggrieved against the order passed by the District Forum, respondent filed an appeal before the State Commission.  The respondent – insurance company had not filed the report of the  surveyor before the District Forum.  The same was filed before the State Commission.  State Commission keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, took the report submitted by the surveyor on record and remanded the case to the District Forum to decide it afresh after taking into consideration the report submitted by the surveyor. 

Counsel for the petitioner contends that the State Commission was not justified in taking the report submitted by the surveyor dated 28.5.2007, after a delay of six years.  The State Commission, being the court of first appeal, had the same powers as the District Forum.  The State Commission took the report of the surveyor on record keeping the facts and circumstances of the case to do complete justice between the parties. 

We agree with the order passed by the State Commission.  Moreover, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of remand. 

Since, the compliant was filed in the year 2001, we direct the District Forum to decide the same within four months of the receipt/production of  certified copy of this order.