Insurance company was the opposite party before the District Forum.

          Briefly stated, the facts are that the respondent/complainant had insured his car with the petitioner insurance company for the period from 04.9.2003 to 3.9.2004 in the sum of Rs.2,75,000/-.  The said car met with an accident on 02.7.2004 at about 3:30 pm at Delhi-

-2-

Saharanpur Road and was badly damaged.  Respondent informed the petitioner insurance company about the accident and submitted his claim.  Insurance company repudiated the same on the ground that at the time of accident, the vehicle was being driven by one              Mr. Sunil Gupta and not by Mr. Vijay Kumar Yadav, and the license produced by the complainant was a fake license.  Aggrieved by this, complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum.

          District Forum vide its order dated 04.6.2008 allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay Rs.2,75,000/- being the insured amount along with Rs.60,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, harassment and deficiency in service, and Rs.10,000/- by way of costs.         

          Aggrieved by the order passed by District Forum, petitioner insurance company filed an appeal before the State Commission.  State Commission by the impugned order has dismissed the appeal with the modification that the insured value was reduced by 5% and maintained rest of the order. 

-3-

Petitioner being aggrieved has filed present revision petition in which a limited notice was issued to the respondent on 30.6.2009 to show cause as to why the amount awarded by the foras below be not reduced to Rs.2,26,968/- which had been spent by the complainant for repair of the vehicle.  Operation of the impugned order was stayed subject to deposit of 50% of the awarded amount along with accrued interest with the District Forum within 4 weeks.  Rs.3,000/- were ordered to be paid to the respondent to meet the litigation expenses.  Petitioner has deposited 50% of the awarded amount along with interest, if any, accrued thereon with the District Forum and also paid sum of Rs.3,000/- to the respondent.

Sh. Ravinder Kumar counsel for the respondent, after taking instructions from his client who is present in the court, states that he is prepared to accept the sum of Rs.2,26,968/- spent by him for getting the vehicle repaired.  Petitioner had filed the complaint with a prayer to pay sum of Rs.2,26,968/- spent by him on repairs of the car along with interest till the date of realization along with compensation

-4-

of Rs.50,000/-.  District Forum had ordered the petitioner to pay Rs.2,75,000/- i.e. the insured amount without considering the prayer clause of the respondent in the complaint filed by him.  The State Commission has reduced the said compensation by 5% keeping in view that the petitioner had used the vehicle for a few months after getting the vehicle insured. 

Since counsel for the respondent has shown his willingness to accept Rs.2,26,968/-, we modify the orders of the foras below and restrict the compensation to Rs.2,26,968/- only along with interest           @ 9% p.a. from 01.1.2005 till the date of realization.  Costs of Rs.10,000/- is maintained.

District Forum is directed to release 50% of the awarded amount deposited by the petitioner with it in favour of the respondent.  Petitioner is directed to pay the balance amount to the respondent within a period of six weeks from today, failing which the rate of interest would be @ 12 % p.a. on the said amount.

-5-

Revision petition is disposed of in above terms.