PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER

        This revision petition has been filed against the orders dated 28.01.2010 and 19.07.2010 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as “State Commission”) in First Appeal No. 158 of 2009, vide which an appeal against the order dated 16.02.2009 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chandigarh in complaint case No. 789/2008 was allowed.

2.     The facts of the case are that the complainant / petitioner is the owner of Toyota Corolla Car Model 2004, bearing registration No. PB 65-C-4041, which was insured with the respondent / opposite party for the period from 26.09.2007 to 25.09.2008.  The said vehicle met with an accident on 21.10.2007.  As per the complainant, the said vehicle was in the name of Jitender Pal Singh and a written request for transfer of the policy was made to the opposite party on 29.10.2007.  The opposite party / respondent appointed a surveyor, who assessed the loss as total loss of the vehicle in question, keeping in view the amount of estimate for repairs Rs. 7,76,745/- as cost of parts and Rs. 72,000/- for labour.  However, the claim could not be settled by the opposite party, rather M/s. Emm Pee Motors, authorized dealers for Toyota cars sent a letter dated 25.3.2008 to the complainant / petitioner, in which it was stated that net liability of Rs. 3,60,611/- was estimated to be borne by the opposite parties and the company sought Rs. 2,83,508/- from the complainant to deliver the vehicle.  The petitioner filed the consumer complaint No. 789/2008 before the District Forum, and the District Forum came to the conclusion that it was not a case of total loss.  They directed the opposite parties to pay the amount of Rs. 3,60,611/- to the complainant within thirty days along with Rs. 5,000/- as cost of litigation.

2.     An appeal was filed by the complainant / petitioner before the State Commission.  The State Commission vide their order dated 28.01.2010 directed the complainant to return the car to the opposite party immediately and directed the opposite party to pay amount of the Insured Declared Value (IDV) i.e. Rs. 5.60 lacs to the complainant and deduct the amount of Rs. 3,60,611/- if already paid.  The petitioner / complainant moved an application before the State Commission for some clarification in the order dated 28.01.2010.  The learned State Commission observed in their order dated 19.07.2010 that if the vehicle was lying with the repairer for the last three years, it was beyond the purview of the State Commission to find out, due to whose fault the car was lying with the repairer since long.  They also stated that the order dated 28.01.2010 was very clear and needed no further clarification.  It is against these two orders of the State Commission that the present petition has been filed.

3.     As per the head note, the complainant / petitioner has filed the case before the National Commission as appeal under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  However, since there is no provision for second appeal, the appeal filed by the complainant is being decided as revision petition.  There was a delay of 172 days in filing the petition, which was ordered to be condoned vide order dated 28.01.2011, subject to payment of cost of Rs. 5,000/- to be deposited with the Consumer-Legal-Aid account of this Commission.

4.     At the time of hearing before us, Shri M.K. Malhotra, father of the petitioner argued the case in person as holder of general power of attorney on behalf of his son.  He stated that as against the IDV of Rs. 4.40 lacs, the cost of the repair of the vehicle was approximately Rs. 6.50 lacs.  However, the District Forum had allowed them to be given only Rs. 3,60,611/-.  The State Commission ordered to give insured declared value of Rs. 5.60 lacs on the condition that the car should be returned to the opposite party.  Shri Malhotra vehemently argued that after the accident, the car had been moved to the nearest repairer and the car was still with them and he shall have to pay a sum of approx. Rs. 11.00 lacs to get the car back.  On the other hand, he was supposed to receive a sum of Rs. 5.60 lacs only from the insurance company, hence he shall be subject to grave injustice and should be properly compensated.

5.     It was stated on behalf of the respondent that they were prepared to comply with the orders passed by the State Commission.  In fact, the car was taken to the repairer not by the respondent/opposite party but by the complainant himself.  The matter of charging money for the repairs carried out, was between the complainants and the repairer and insurance company could not be saddled with any liability for the amount incurred for the repairs, in addition to that allowed by the insurance policy.  Moreover, the person who is supposed to have repaired the car, has not been made a party.

6.     We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us.  It is very clear from the facts of the case that the IDV as per the policy is Rs. 5.60 lacs and the State Commission, vide impugned order have directed the opposite parties to pay claim amount of Rs. 5.60 lacs along with interest of 7% from the date of filing of the complaint till realization.  It has already been ordered that the said order should be complied with within one month, failing which the interest @ 12% shall accrue.  The complainant filed an application for clarification before the State Commission, in which he stated that the car was lying with the repairer for the last three years.  The State Commission categorically stated that this matter was not to be gone into by the State Commission.   Further, a perusal of the complaint filed by the complainant before the District Forum, reveals that they had sought directions form the District Forum for getting the claim of Rs. 5.60 lacs, being IDV for the insured vehicle along with 12% interest, Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for mental torture etc., and Rs. 11,000/- as cost of litigation.  Since the State Commission has already allowed Rs. 5.60 lacs to be paid to the complainant / petitioner along with interest of 7% per annum, we do not think that any further relief is required to be given to the petitioner.  The amount of compensation as demanded by the petitioner in his complaint has already been allowed to him and if he has spent more money on repairs etc., it is a matter strictly between the complainant and the repairer.  There is no material to disbelieve the version of the opposite party that the vehicle was taken to the repairer by the complainant himself and they are not concerned in any manner, whether the vehicle had been delivered back to the complainant or not.

7.     Based on this discussion, the present petition is ordered to be dismissed and the order passed by the State Commission upheld with no order as to costs.