1.       This Revision Petition, by an Authorized Dealer in the vehicles manufactured by Toyota Kirloskar Motor Private Limited, is directed against the order dated 18.10.2016, passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Kolkata (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeal No. A/330/2015.  By the impugned order, the State Commission has affirmed the order dated 13.02.2015, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Darjeeling (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint Case No. 30/2014.  By the said order, while partly allowing the Complaint, filed by Respondent No.1 herein, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the National Insurance Company Limited (for short “the Insurance Company”) as well as the present Petitioner for not reimbursing the total amount charged from him by the Petitioner for repairs of the insured vehicle, which had met with an accident on 30.10.2012, the District Forum had directed the Petitioner as well as the Insurance Company, Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2 respectively in the Complaint, to pay to the Complainant a sum of ₹3,92,080/- jointly and severally towards the expenses incurred, as per the receipts furnished by the Complainant.  While issuing the said direction, the District Forum had bifurcated the amounts payable by the Insurance Company at ₹1,50,000/- and a sum of ₹1,96,040/- by the Petitioner herein.  The District Forum had also awarded compensation of ₹10,000/- as also litigation costs of ₹5,000/-, which liabilities were also made joint and several upon the Opposite Parties.  The said directions were directed to be complied within one month, failing which the entire decretal amount was to carry interest @ 6% p.a.

2.       The short grievance of the Petitioner herein is that since the vehicle in question had met with a major accident, which might have resulted in damage to the engine, the claim preferred by the Complainant was not maintainable under the warranty conditions, and, therefore, the Fora below have erred in fastening the liability on the Petitioner, more so, when it had only charged the cost of the repairs carried out in the said vehicle.  

3.       Having heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and perused the documents on record, we are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the submission made by the learned Counsel.

4.       Admittedly, the Insurance Company has not questioned the correctness of the order passed by both the Fora below and, as a matter of fact, it is stated that it has already paid to the Complainant its share of compensation, awarded by the Fora below, and, therefore, the question of the warranty conditions not being applicable because of the accident, cannot be raised by the Dealer.  We hold accordingly.  Insofar as the question of fastening of liability on the Dealer for recovering the repair charges from the Complainant is concerned, we are of the view that both the Fora below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that apart from the fact that there was delay on the part of the Petitioner in carrying out the initial repairs, the Petitioner was not justified in recovering from the Complainant the charges for repair of the engine.  Hence, in the absence of any challenge to the said finding being perverse, there is no ground to reverse the same in exercise of Revisionary Jurisdiction vested in this Commission.  Having held so, we feel that the Petitioner has not lost its right to recover the amount, which it is required to pay to the Complainant under the impugned order, from the Insurance Company under the policy in question.

5.       Consequently, the Revision Petition is dismissed, with the clarification that the dismissal of this Petition would not come in the way of the Petitioner to recover any amount from the Insurance Company under the policy in question, if so advised.     

6.       The Revision Petition stands disposed of in the above terms.