ORDER (ORAL) 1. The present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 23.08.2018 in appeal of the petitioner/complainant against the judgement dated 30.11.2016. 2. Admitted facts of the case is that the vehicle of the complainant was insured with the respondent and it met with an accident. The surveyor reported that the vehicle was repairable. However, the insurance company informed the complainant to get the vehicle repaired and submit the claim. The complainant, however, approached the District Forum. The District -2- Forum after taking on record, the written version of the respondent and evidences of the parties on record reached to the conclusion that the loss to the vehicle was total and gave the following directions : “The complainant of the complainant is allowed against the opposite parties for Rs.5,00,000/-. For that the complainant will give possession of the accidental vehicle to the opposite parties and the registration certificate will transfer in favour of the opposite parties on his expenses. The order be complied within one month from the date of judgment. The parties will bear their own costs of the case.” The petitioner/complainant challenged this order before the State Commission wherein he claimed the interest on the amount ordered to be paid to him by the respondent and also claimed the garage charges at the rate of Rs.100/- per day. In the appeal, the complainant also claimed the adjustment of the salvage value of the accidental vehicle in the amount granted by the District Forum. After hearing the parties and re-appreciating and reassessing the evidences on record, the State Commission modified the order of the District Forum and issued the following directions : “The appellant/complainant is liable to get total insured amount by giving salves of the vehicle to the respondent/opposite party but he has not given salves to the insurance company. Thus he is not liable to get any interest on the insured sum. But the insurance company has denied his claim on the illegal ground, due to reason such long time has been expend to get insurance claim. Thus we are view of that the appellant/complainant is liable to Rs.75,000/- on one time from the respondent/opposite party. In our opinion the judgment passed by the District Consumer Forum is required to modify. -3- On above ground the appeal is partly allowed and the respondent/opposite party is directed to pay Rs.75,000/- as compassion to the appellant/complainant along with judgment passed by the District Consumer Forum.” 3. This order is impugned before me. Learned counsel for the complainant/petitioner submits that complainant is ready to pay 25% as a salvage value of the accidental vehicle which the respondent can deduct from the amount of Rs.5 lakh payable by it to him. As regards the contention of the complainant that he is entitled for the refund of the garage charges, he has failed to bring to my notice any agreement with the opposite party wherein the opposite party was liable to pay the garage charges to the petitioner. It is argued on behalf of the respondent that the petitioner had not complied with all the directions of the District Forum and not handed over the damaged vehicle to them rather it had surrendered the vehicle with the transport department wherein he was paying Rs.100/- per day as garage charges. It is submitted that opposite party was ready to take the damaged vehicle and there is no liability to pay the garage charges on them. 4. Admittedly, the complainant had not complied with the directions of the District Forum and instead of surrendering the vehicle with RTO for registration, the same was surrendered only on 3.4.2017 while he was directed to comply with the directions passed by the State Commission within one month i.e. by 30.12.2016. It is further contended that this fact was also not brought to the notice of the State Commission. In view of these facts and circumstance of the case, apparently, the complainant/petitioner is not entitled to any garage charges in the absence of any agreement with the opposite party. Moreover, the vehicle was not kept with the opposite party but with the RTO. 5. The State Commission after perusing the entire record and re-appreciating and reassessing the record, reached to the conclusion that the complainant was entitled for a compensation of RS.75,000/-. When compensation has been awarded, the complainant/petitioner is not entitled for interest on the unpaid amount. The present revision petition has no merit and the same is hereby dismissed. The same stands disposed of with the direction that salvage money which is payable by the complainant shall be calculated at the rate of 25% of the total award amount i.e. of 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakh only) and that be deductible by the opposite party from the awarded amount. | 
