1.       This revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 28.4.2016 passed in first appeal No. 538 of 1998 by U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (in short, ‘the State Commission’) whereby the appeal of the complainant was dismissed.

2.       The complainant, Narendra Kumar Maheshwari, insured his truck bearing registration No. DIG 3214 with the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd./OP for Rs. 2.5 lakh.  During the subsistence of the insurance policy, the truck met with an accident on 7.4.1993 at Aligarh.  One person died in the accident, therefore, the students of Muslim University put the truck on fire, which burnt completely.  The OP was informed about the incident, survey was conducted.  During the intervening period, OP has compelled the complainant to shift the salvage twice from one place to another at the cost of the complainant.  It was alleged that on 7.3.1994 complainant had consented for the amount of Rs.2,28,500/- but the OP delayed the actual payment.  It was paid on 16.12.1994.  Being aggrieved by the delay in settlement of claim, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bulandshahar (in short, ‘the District Forum’) 

3.       The OP filed the written version and resisted the complaint.  OP denied that they have instructed the complainant for shifting of the burnt truck twice.  The spot survey was not done because the boys of the university have opposed for the survey. 

4.       The District Forum, on the basis of pleadings and evidence, held OP liable for deficiency because of inordinate delay in payment.  It caused mental agony to the complainant for more than two years.  The District Forum directed the OP to pay Rs. 20,000/- for mental agony and physical agony alongwith litigation charges of Rs.1,500/-.

5.       Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, the complainant filed an appeal before the State Commission for enhancement.  It was dismissed.  Hence, the complainant filed this revision petition.

6.       Heard the petitioner in person.  He submitted that the OP had delayed to settle the claim, therefore, he suffered loss and mental agony, accordingly, he deserves more compensation.          Learned counsel for the OP submitted that the claim was paid as per the report of surveyor.  The final survey was delayed because of non-accessibility of the surveyor at Muslim University.

7.       After thoughtful consideration to the arguments of both the parties, it is clear from the record that the accident took place on 7.4.1993 and the final survey was conducted after 8 months on 4.12.1993, but payment of claim was made by OP on 3.5.1995 i.e. almost after 1 ½ years of delay.  Considering the facts, District Forum and the State Commission have awarded proper compensation.

8.       Therefore, there is no justification for enhancement of compensation.  I do not find any merit in the instant revision petition.  It is ordered to be dismissed.  There shall be no order as to cost.