Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

2.     Learned counsel for the petitioner states that his insurance claim was not decided by the insurance company, therefore, the petitioner preferred a complaint before the District Forum being CC no. 454 of 2006. The District Forum vide its order dated 21.12.2013 passed the following order:

“15.   In the result, we partly allow the complaint and direct that the opposite party shall process claim application afresh in accordance with the upheld law within 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The complainant is to provide the documents if any before the opposite party as demanded by them.”

3.     Though the complainant submitted all the papers before the insurance company as per the order of the District Forum, but the insurance company repudiated the claim on 17.04.2014. After getting the repudiation letter, the petitioner challenged the order of the District Forum dated 21.12.2013 before the State Commission in appeal. The State Commission vide its order dated 11.11.2019 has dismissed the appeal.

4.     Hence, the present revision petition has been filed.

5.     We have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. On the one hand, the complainant had complied with the order and submitted all the documents before the insurance company as directed by the District Forum and on the other hand, the petitioner preferred the appeal against the order of the District Forum. After compliance of the order, the insurance company repudiated the claim vide its letter dated 17.04.2014. Then the complainant appealed against the order of the District Forum which in any case was delayed and the same was not maintainable before the State Commission, because the complainant had already availed and complied with the order of the District Forum. The District Forum’s order had become final by then and therefore, the appeal in any case was not maintainable as the complainant had already complied with the order of the District Forum. The State Commission has rightly dismissed the appeal and therefore, we do not find any force in the revision petition. However, it is seen that the repudiation of the claim of the complainant has not been challenged by the complainant, therefore, we deem it appropriate to allow the complainant to file a complaint against the repudiation of its claim before the appropriate forum which is the District Forum now.

6.     Accordingly, revision petition no. 707 of 2020 is dismissed at the admission stage, however, liberty is granted to the complainant to file a complaint challenging the repudiation letter issued by the insurance company rejecting the claim before the appropriate District Forum if so advised. The delay that has happened since filing of the appeal before the State Commission till today is condoned under section 14 of the Limitation Act.