Petitioner’s car met with an accident.  According to him, he had spent Rs.1,08,000/- on its repairs.  On claim being lodged, respondent appointed a Surveyor and settled the claim of the petitioner and paid Rs.70,554/- towards full and final settlement.  Rs.2,000/- were awarded towards transportation.  Petitioner after a lapse of 6 months of the settlement arrived at between the parties,

-2-

filed the complaint before the District Forum for the balance amount of Rs.37,446/- along with the interest.

          District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.37,317/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum with effect from 08.1.2005 till realization and Rs.5,000/- towards compensation along with Rs.2,000/- as costs.

          Respondent being aggrieved filed an appeal before the State Commission.  The State Commission has reversed the order passed by the District Forum.  It is held that the petitioner had accepted the sum of Rs.70,554/- by way of final settlement voluntarily and of free will.  That the amount had not been accepted by the petitioner under protest as alleged; that the complaint was not maintainable as the dispute had been settled finally between the parties.  Another finding recorded by the State Commission is that 20/30 % of the amount was liable to be deducted towards depreciation as the car was of 2003 model and the accident had taken place in the year 2005.

          We have heard counsel for the petitioner and gone through the order passed by the District Forum as well as the State Commission. 

-3-

We agree with the view taken by the State Commission.  There is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioner had accepted the sum of Rs.70,554/- by way of final settlement under duress.  It seems that the settlement arrived at between the parties was voluntary and of free will.  We also agree with the finding recorded by the State Commission that 20/30% of the amount was liable to be deducted towards depreciation as the car was of 2003 model and the accident had taken place after two years in 2005.  

In exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 this Commission can interfere with the orders only if it appears that the Authority below has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. Dismissed.  No costs.

          Counsel for the petitioner states that Rs.15,000/- had been paid to the petitioner by way of interim direction during the pendency of appeal before the State Commission.  If that be so, the respondents

-4-

are restrained from recovering the same from the petitioner.

          Dasti.