None present for the petitioner even though, the matter was pending till 1.00 p.m.  The petitioner was informed of today’s date of hearing vide notice dated 15.7.2010 and Acknowledgment Due in respect of the said notice is kept in Part – II file. In spite of service, no one appears on behalf of the petitioner.  The petition is liable to be dismissed on this count alone.  However, we have gone through the merits of the case. 

The vehicle belonging to the complainant was stolen on 22.6.2001 and the Police filed final report dated 27.9.2001 of the vehicle being not traced.  The complainant had given R.C. book and keys to the respondent and it appears that formalities regarding subrogation of the vehicle were also completed between the complainant and insurance company. However, later on, the said vehicle was traced and the complainant was informed about the same, but complainant did not take possession of the said vehicle and insisted for settlement of the claim with the insurance company.  The claim was not settled by the insurance company.  Then complainant approached the District Forum.  District Forum had dismissed the complaint.  As against the said dismissal, the complainant had filed an appeal before the State Commission.  State Commission has directed the insurance company to pay a sum of Rs.4.5 lakhs to the complainant towards the insurance for which the car had been insured by the company.  It appears that the complainant is not satisfied with the order of the State Commission that is why he is in revision.

In the complaint filed by the complainant, he filed a claim of Rs.4,97,250/- with 21% interest and also compensation.  Obviously, complainant could not be awarded more than the insured value of the vehicle which was 4.5 lakhs which has already been awarded by the State Commission.  In the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find that any case has been made out for award of interest or compensation inasmuch as, the vehicle ultimately was traced but the complainant had refused to take possession of the vehicle. 

In view of the above, we do not find that any case has been made out for interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the revision is, hereby dismissed, with no order as to costs.