PER JUSTICE R.C. JAIN (ORAL) 1. Not contented with the order dated 12th of November, 2010 passed by the M.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal (for short the State Commission) in First Appeal No. 902 of 2008, the original complainant has filed the present petition. His complaint was earlier dismissed by the District Forum, Bhopal vide an order dated 15.02.2008 on the ground that the Insurance Company had not repudiated the claim by the time the complaint was filed. The State Commission having taken into account the assessment of loss made by the surveyor had allowed the appeal by observing as under :- “The appellant has stated that in the large number of items the surveyor has mentioned “to be checked” which shows that the report is not complete. Shri Amit Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent has candidly stated that because certain parts are concealed and the position will become known when the actual repairs start and the parts are opened, the surveyor has mentioned that it is to be checked. Since the surveyor has already assessed the amount in the sum of Rs.55,154/- and the Insurance Company shall also pay for other damages to be checked, we feel that it will be reasonable to award a sum of Rs.55,154/- to the appellant as damages assessed by the surveyor with direction to the Insurance Company to pay such further amounts as may become discernible after the repairs start. With the above direction the appeal is disposed of with no order as to costs.” 2. We have heard Mr. B.S. Sharma, the petitioner in person, and Mr. Amit Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company and have considered their submissions. 3. Mr. Sharma would assail the order passed by the State Commission firstly on the ground that the State Commission has erred in relying and acting upon the survey report and the loss as assessed by the surveyor and secondly on the ground that this was a fit case where the assessment should have been made on the total loss basis. He submits that certain damaged parts have not been taken into account by the surveyor while assessing the net loss. 4. On the other hand counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company submits that the respondent/Insurance Company is willing and prepared to abide by the order passed by the State Commission and in fact a cheque in the sum of Rs.55,154/- was prepared for being handed over to the petitioner but he declined to accept the same, which is disputed by the petitioner. 5. After having heard the parties and having considered the matter, we are of the view that the State Commission has fully protected the interest of the petitioner/complainant by making the said order, inasmuch as the right of the petitioner/complainant to claim further amount which he may spent in excess of Rs.55,154/- has been preserved and the respondent/Insurance Company has been directed to pay the said further amount once the repair starts. It appears to us that the petitioner/complainant instead of taking the order of the State Commission in proper perspective is trying to drag the issue. 6. We, therefore, consider it appropriate to direct the respondent/Insurance Company to pay the amount of Rs.55,154/- to the petitioner/complainant within a period of two weeks in terms of the order of the State Commission and thereafter it would be open for the petitioner/complainant to get the vehicle in question repaired through the authorized dealer and in the process if the cost of such repairs exceeds, the same shall be intimated to the respondent/Insurance Company as well as their surveyor, who will again examine the said vehicle as also the estimate given by the workshop and make the reassessment of the net loss. Depending upon the said reassessment, the respondent/Insurance Company shall remit any further amount due to the petitioner/complainant after adjusting the sum of Rs.55,154/- within a period of six weeks. 7. With the above observations and directions, this revision petition stands disposed of. | 
