1.       The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondent as detailed above, against the order dated 21.04.2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No. 668 of 2016 in which order dated 16.06.2016 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurdaspur (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) No. 405 of 2015 was challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the judgment dated 21.04.2017 passed by the State Commission, Punjab in FA/668/2016.

2.       While the Revision Petitioner (hereinafter also referred to as OP) was Appellant and the Respondent (hereinafter also referred to as Complainant) was Respondent in the said FA/668/2016 before the State Commission, the Revision Petitioner was Opposite Party and Respondent was Complainant before the District Forum in the CC No. 405 of 2015. Notice was issued to the Respondent on 04.10.2017.  Parties filed Written Arguments/Synopsis on 06.04.2018 and 08.05.2018 respectively.

3.       Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Forum and other case records are that: -

The Complainant/Respondent had insured his car with the OP/petitioner herein vide policy bearing No. MOP2557498 for the period from 16.10.2014 to 15.10.2015. The said car met with an accident on 05.12.2014, when the complainant with one Jai-Gopal was going to Chandigarh on his vehicle. At about 7 AM when they reached at Adda Satnaur, Badesron and were crossing a Canter, then a Canter bearing No. PB-32-J-8595 coming at high speed from Garhshankar side and hit the same with his car due to which the complainant and Jai Gopal had injuries and the car was badly damaged in this accident. The complainant/respondent reported to the police of Police Station Mahilpur and police registered criminal case vide FIR No. 133 dated 05.12.2014 under section 279/337/427 of IPC against driver of the Canter namely Nirmal Singh.  The complainant/respondent reported the matter to the OP/petitioner herein and OP deputed their Surveyor and the loss of the vehicle was assessed as total loss which was to the tune of Rs.4,32,000/-.  The OP agreed to pay Rs.4,15,000/- as per settlement arrived between the parties and he gave his consent for the same.  But the OP paid only Rs.2,15,000/- on 15.04.2015 to him and did not pay the remaining amount of Rs.2,00,000/- despite the repeated requests and finally refused to make payment of the remaining amount.  Hence, the complainant filed complaint before the District Forum.

4.       Vide Order dated 16.06.2016, in the CC No. 405/2015 the District Forum has disposed of the complaint and passed the following order:

“In the light of the all above, we are of the considered opinion that the present complaint shall be best disposed of by directing the complainant to handover the wreckage/accidented salvage of the insured car to the OP insurers within 30 days of the receipt of these orders and who in turn shall pay the balance claim amount of Rs.2.00 Lac within 10 days of the compliance of the present orders by the present complainant otherwise the aggregate amount shall attract interest @ 9% PA from the date of filing of the complaint till actual payment. The parties shall however, bear their own costs, here.” 

5.       Aggrieved by the said Order dated 16.06.2016 of District Forum, Petitioner appealed in State Commission and the State Commission vide order dated 21.04.2017 in FA No. 668/2016 has dismissed the appeal.

6.       Petitioner has challenged the said Order dated 16.06.2016 of the State Commission mainly on following grounds:

(i)      The impugned order is bad in law and is based on presumptions, conjectures and surmises. The State Commission omitted to observe that the complainant had received and encashed the cheque No. 855174 for a sum of Rs.2,14,000/- in full and final settlement of the claim and the consent letter was also duly executed.  The State Commission omitted to observe that the vehicle was seized by police and released on Superdarinama bond in the sum of Rs. 6 lacs in respect of the surety bond.  Since the complainant was not able to make arrangement to clear superdarinama, the wreck deteriorated.  The said facts were willfully hidden by the complainant in his complaint.  The vehicle was ordered to be released only on SUPERDARI by the judicial Magistrate vide order dated 16.01.2015 to the complainant.  In such circumstances, the application for releasing the car on superdarinama in favour of the complainant/insured was allowed by the court of Judicial Magistrate. The car was ordered to be handed over to the complainant.  This itself shows that the possession of the car was taken over by the complainant.  The salvage of the car was with the complainant, the Petitioner was bound to make deduction on account of the salvage value of the car, being in accordance with condition No. 3 of the insurance contract.  The State Commission omitted to observe that the Insurance company had settled the claim on salvage loss basis, based on the terms and conditions of the policy. 

(ii)     The State Commission has unjustly directed the Petitioner in para 12 of its order as “we hereby direct the present appellant that they can take away the salvage from the garage where the car is still standing and pay the amount as costs of repair as per their own admission for having arrived at a settlement of Rs.4,15,000/- with the complainant.” The claim was settled by the Petitioner on salvage loss basis. Once the parties had agreed to the settlement on salvage loss basis, the  State Commission was not correct in directing the Petitioner to pay the salvage value & take over the salvage from the garage after paying the repair cost.

(iii)    The State Commission omitted to observe that the complainant had given consent to settle the claim on salvage loss basis.  The claim was settled by the Petitioner on salvage loss basis.  Once the parties had agreed to the settlement on salvage loss bass, the State Commission was not correct in directing the Petitioner to bay the salvage value and take over the salvage from the garage after paying the repair cost.  The State Commission omitted to observe that in case the consent letter was being challenged, then the matter ought to have been relegated to Civil Court where both parties would get ample opportunity to lead evidence and cross-examine the witnesses.

(iv) The State Commission did not observe that the opposite party had facilitated for finding prospective wreck buyer. In this process, three wreck quotations were received for Rs.1,50,000/- Rs. 1,80,000/- and Rs. 2,00,000/-. The said claim was processed with highest bid. The State Commission has omitted to observe that the liability of the Petitioner was only Rs.2,14,000/- on salvage loss basis and this amount was paid by the Petitioner and accepted by the complainant in full and final settlement of the claim. The complainant/respondent is estopped from re-agitating the claim. The State Commission has omitted to observe that the wreck value has to be paid by the wreck buyer and not by the insurance company. The Petitioner is not a party to the said contract between the wreck buyer and the complainant. The State Commission has omitted to observe that the wreck quotation of Rs.2,00,000/- was received from cartrade.com and the quote was valid for 7 days. The wreck value has to be paid by the wreck buyer and not by the insurance company. The Petitioner is not a party to the said contract between the wreck buyer and the complainant. The Petitioner has rightly settled the claim of the respondent/complainant. The remaining amount claimed by the complainant is that of wreck which has to be paid by the wreck buyer. The Petitioner cannot be made liable to pay the wreck value. The State Commission has omitted to observe that the vehicle was seized by police and released on Superdarinama bond in the sum of Rs. 6 lacs in respect of the surety bond. Since complainant was not able to make arrangement to clear superdarinama, the wreck deteriorated. The said facts were wilfully hidden by the complainant in his complaint. The State Commission did not observe that the Petitioner has rightly settled the claim of the respondent/complainant. The remaining amount claimed by the complainant is that of wreck which has to be paid by the wreck buyer. The Petitioner cannot be made liable to pay the wreck value. The State Commission has erred in directing the petitioner to pay the balance salvage value to the complainant. The State Commission erred in observing that the total cost of the car was Rs. 2,00,000/- and there was no mention of amount being that for salvage cost. The State Commission erred in directing the release of Rs. 25,000/- deposited by the Petitioner/Appellant at the time of filing appeal and Rs. 83,458/- which was deposited by the Petitioner/Appellant before the State Commission as per directions dated 21.09.2014 of the State Commission.

(iv) The State Commission erred in directing the Petitioner to pay the remaining payment as per the order dated 16.06.2016 of the District Forum in CC No. 405 of 2016 in case titled Rajeev Kant versus Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited. The State Commission erred in observing in para 14 of its judgement dated 21.04.2017, that the complainant may be allowed to take back the repaired vehicle from the workshop, where the vehicle is still standing.
The State Commission has erred in directing the Petitioner to comply with the order of the District Forum and pay interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till actual payment.

7.       Heard counsels of both sides.  Contentions/pleas of the parties, on various issues raised in the RP, Written Arguments, and Oral Arguments advanced during the hearing, are summed up below.

7.1     Petitioner in addition to repeating what has been stated in para 6 under the grounds, has contended that the Petitioner appointed IRDA approved surveyor, Mr. Manipal Singh to survey and assess the loss.  The loss was settled on salvage loss basis.  The complainant after the receipt and encashment of the amount of Rs.2,14,000/-  without any protest, after a belated period of more than 6 months, as an afterthought, filed a complaint bearing No. 405 of 2015 before the District Forum on 23.10.2015, seeking payment of the salvage amount of Rs.2,00,000/- along with other reliefs. The sum of Rs.2,14,000/- received by the complainant as full and final settlement of the claim and the consent letter was also duly executed.  It is further contended by the petitioner that the insurance company has rightly settled the claim of the complainant/respondent herein.  The remaining amount claimed by the complainant is that of wreck which has to be paid by the wreck buyer.  The Petitioner cannot be made liable to pay the wreck value.  The State Commission erred in directing the Petitioner to comply with the order of the District Forum and pay interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till actual payment. Hence, the judgement dated 21.04.2017 be set aside.

7.2.    On the other hand Respondent has contended that the Insurance Company agreed to pay Rs.4,15,000/- to the complainant/respondent as per settlement arrived at between the parties and the complainant gave his consent for the same.  The Petitioner also obtained signature of the Respondent on number of papers and blank form at the time of settling the matter between the parties.  To the utter surprise of the Respondent, the Petitioner had paid only Rs.2,15,000/- on 15.04.2015 and did not pay the remaining amount of Rs.2,00,000/- despite repeated requests and personal visits made by the Respondent to the office of the insurance company/petitioner herein.  The surveyor of the Petitioner has given the report of amount of salvage also and the Respondent has never denied to hander over the same to the Petitioner. As per the instructions of the Petitioner the vehicle has been given to the nearest service centre and till date the vehicle is standing with the same service centre. It is the responsibility of the Petitioner to take the salvage and pay the amount as per the report of the appointed surveyor of the petitioner.  Both the Fora below have found that it was deliberate fault of the Petitioner to pay only Rs.2,15,000/- to the Respondent and not given the rest amount as per the report of the Surveyor appointed by the Petitioner. 

8.       As was observed by this Commission on 19.04.2023, the main issue is whether the complainant had given any consent to the OP’s decision to deduct Rs.2.00 lakh from the settlement at Rs.4,15,000/- arrived at between the parties, as salvage value of the wreckage of the vehicle.  The surveyor has assessed the loss at Rs.4,32,000/-, but OPs agreed to pay Rs.4,15,000/- as per settlement between the parties, but only Rs.2,15,000/- was released.  OPs contented that complainant had given consent to settle the claim as salvage basis; the wreck value of Rs.2.00 lakh is to be paid by wreck buyer and not the OP, as OP is not a party to said contract between the wreck buyer and complainant, although the Opposite Party facilitated for finding the prospective wreck buyer, in the process three wreck quotations were received for Rs.1.50 lakh, Rs.1.80 lakh and Rs.2.00 lakh respectively and the said claim was processed with highest bid, with net liability of OP at Rs.2,14,000/-. In this regard extract of relevant para of order of District Forum is reproduced below:

“6. We have carefully examined all the documents/evidence produced on record and have also judiciously considered and perused the arguments duly put forth by the learned counsels along with the incidental scope of adverse inference for of some documents that have been somehow ignored to be produced by the contesting litigants. We observe that the prime dispute pertaining to the present complaint stands duly settled vides the mutually agreed upon settlement for an amount of Rs.4,15,000/- out of which the initial payment of Rs.2.15 Lac stands already credited in the Bank A/c of the complainant and the OP insurers have duly consented (before the Forum) to  pay the balance amount Rs.2.00 Lac upon receipt of the Salvage/wreckage of the accidented vehicle lying in the PS Mahilpur, but the legal possession/supardari of which lies with the complainant.

7. In the light of the all above, we are of the considered opinion that the present complaint shall be best disposed of by directing the complainant to handover the wreckage/accidented salvage of the insured car to the OP insurers within 30 days of the receipt of these orders and who in turn shall pay the balance claim amount of Rs.2.00 Lac within 10 days of the compliance of the present orders by the present complainant otherwise the aggregate amount shall attract interest @ 9% PA from the date of filing of the complaint till actual payment. The parties shall however, bear their own costs, here.”

9.       State Commission in its order dated 21.04.2017 has observed as follows:-

7. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that once consent letter was given and there is no allegation that the said consent was taken by force or undue pressure exerted on the complainant or by way of fraudulent act and the same holds as a valid discharge towards the settlement of the claim, as settled in his favour to the tune of Rs.2,14,000/-.

8. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent argued that OPs had taken blank papers signed from the complainant. He further argued that the consent letter placed on record does not bear the signature of the complainant, if the same, when compared with the signature affixed on the complaint as well as on the affidavit and Power of Attorney executed by him in favour of his counsel. The signatures appended on the record does not tally with the consent letter placed on the record. He further argued that there is no averment in the email received by the Insurance Company from the salvage buyer that the wreck quotation of Rs.2,00,000/- as sent by them was for wreck. From the email, it would be evident that the total price quoted was for the vehicle and not for the salvage. It states "our reserved price for the said vehicle is Rs.2,00,000/- valid 7 days. Kindly approve the same". He further argued that on perusal of this email, it would be quite clear that the total cost of the accidental vehicle was assessed as Rs.2,00,000/- and there was no salvage bid sent by them to the extent of Rs.2,00,000/- as agitated by the counsel of appellant. From the perusal of this email, it would be evident that no agreement was entered between the complainant and the said salvage buyer. It was wrongly agitated by the OP No.1 that an agreement has been entered between the complainant and the said salvage buyer. He further argued that accidental vehicle is still lying in the garage, where it was sent for repair. Salvage if any, can be taken by the Insurance Company as no salvage amount was paid by it. Nor any amount was received as alleged from the salvage buyer, which gave quotations to the Insurance Company and not to the complainant.

10. We have gone through the record and have perused the email, which was addressed to the and the same was not addressed to the complainant. From the perusal of the same, it is observed by us that the total price of the car was to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- but there was no mention of amount being that for salvage cost. As such the arguments raised by counsel for the appellant that it was for salvage of the car is not a valid argument.

xxxx

From the above, it is quite clear that this quotation was just for the car value and not for salvage of the car. Moreover, as per Ex.OP-8, the message is received by the Insurance Company from Rohit Singh, QC Executive vide his email ID: "rohit.singh@cartradeexec.com", not by the complainant.

11. Second point which was raised by the counsel for the respondents about non-matching of the complainant's signature; we are of the firm opinion after the comparison of the signature, across the complaint and across his affidavit filed on the record, signatures placed on the consent letter, which is placed on the record by OP do not tally with the signatures of the complainant.

12. We do not find any merit in favour of the present appellant to pass an order to set-aside the well reasoned order passed by the District Forum. We hereby direct the present appellant that they can take away the salvage from the garage where the car is still standing and pay the amount as costs of repair as per their own admission for having arrived at a settlement of Rs.4,15,000/- with the complainant.”

10.     We have carefully gone through the orders of State Commission, District Forum, other relevant records and rival contentions of the parties.  There are concurrent findings of both the fora below against the Petitioner herein.  As was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rubi Chandra Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2011) 11 SCC 269], the scope in a Revision Petition is limited. Such powers can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order. In Sunil Kumar Maity Vs. State Bank of India & Ors. [AIR (2022) SC 577]  held that “the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the said Act is extremely limited. It should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the said provision, namely when it appears to the National Commission that the State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.”   

11.     The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajiv Shukla vs Gold Rush Sales And Services Ltd. Civil Appeal No. 5928 of 2022, decided on 8 September, 2022, held that:-

“13. As per Section 21(b) the National Commission shall have jurisdiction to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any State Commission where it appears to the National Commission that such State Commission has exercised its 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. Thus, the powers of the National Commission are very limited. Only in a case where it is found that the State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise the jurisdiction so vested illegally or with material irregularity, the National Commission would be justified in exercising the revisional jurisdiction.

14. In exercising of revisional jurisdiction the National Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission which are on appreciation of evidence on record. Therefore, while passing the impugned judgment and order the National Commission has acted beyond the scope and ambit of the revisional jurisdiction conferred under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act.”

12.     We find no irregularity or material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order of the State Commission. The State Commission has given a well-reasoned order, hence the same is upheld. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is dismissed. 

13.     The pending IAs in the case, if any, also stand disposed off.