NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/1743/2012

SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO. LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

ABDUL KADAR & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

MR. LENIN SINGH HIJAM

01 Apr 2013

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
REVISION PETITION NO. 1743 OF 2012
 
(Against the Order dated 22/02/2012 in Appeal No. 574/2011 of the State Commission Chhattisgarh)
1. SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO. LTD.
Through Branch Manager,Vaniya Bhawan, 2nd floor,Devendra Nagar
Raipur
C.G
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus 
1. ABDUL KADAR & ANR.
R/o Trimurti Nagar,Timer Market Fadadih
Raipur
C.G
2. Shriram Genral Insurence Co Ltd.,
E/8 E.P.I.P.R.I.I.C.O. Industrial Area,Sitapur
Jaipur
Rajasthan - 302022
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE, PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. SURESH CHANDRA, MEMBER

For the Petitioner :
Mr. Lenin Singh Hijam, Advocate
For the Respondent :
R-1 NEMO
R-2 Mr. Naveen Kumar Chouhan, Advocate

Dated : 01 Apr 2013
ORDER

This revision is directed against the impugned order of the State Commission dated 22.2.2012 whereby the State Commission while agreeing with the main finding of District Forum partly modified the order of District Forum to remove the contradictions occurring in the order. On perusal of order of District Forum we find that District Forum while allowing the complaint passed following order: - he vehicle of complainant is in standing position in workshop. The said vehicle be position in any workshop. The said vehicle be repaired immediately by -2- the complainant and the non applicant no-01 pay the amount of Rs.1,07,403/- estimated by the surveyor to the concerned workshop. The non applicant no-02 has immediately approved the loss amount by the surveyor and has paid the actual amount through cheque to the non applicant no-01. Thus non applicant no-02 has not done any negligence on his service. Therefore the complainant is not entitled to any relief from the non applicants. Hence the complain filed is being dismissed for want of evidence. Both the parties shall bear their own expenses of the suit. On perusal of the above order it is clear that the District Forum directed immediate repair of the vehicle in question and directed opposite party No.1 (revision petitioner) to pay the amount of Rs.1,07,403/- received by them against the insurance claim to the concerned workshop. From the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner it appears that the petitioner instead of complying with the order of the District Forum has misappropriated said amount of Rs.1,07,403/-. Accordingly with a view to have a clear factual picture petitioner is directed to file affidavit of its concerned Director who is looking after the finance and accounts indicating on which date the cheque of Rs.1,07,403/- -3- was received from the insurance company and what has happened to the aforesaid amount and also indicate whether or not order of this Commission dated 28th September, 2012 for depositing of the aforesaid amount with the concerned District Forum has been complied with and if not the reason for non compliance. Affidavit be filed within three weeks. List on 9.7.2013.

 
......................J
AJIT BHARIHOKE
PRESIDING MEMBER
......................
SURESH CHANDRA
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.