Complainant/Respondent No.1 purchased a truck after availing loan from Cholamandlam Investment & Finance Co. Ltd. – Respondent No.2 herein.  The truck was insured with the petitioner insurance company.  The truck met with an accident during the currency of the insurance policy.  Surveyor appointed by the petitioner at the first instance assessed the loss at Rs.2,79,038/- on repair basis.  However, on the request of the insurance company, he also assessed the loss on cash loss on repair basis and assessed the loss at Rs.2,28,556/-.  To this assessment of cash loss on repair basis, consent of complainant/Respondent No.1 was also obtained.  The insurance company accepted the assessment and after deducting the sum of Rs.1,006/-, paid Rs.2,27,550/- to the finance company, i.e., Respondent No.2, who in turn credited the amount in the loan account of complainant/Respondent No.1.  According to the complainant, as per the terms and conditions of the policy, the amount was payable to him and that the same could not be paid directly to the finance company.  Aggrieved by this, complainant/Respondent No.1 filed the complaint before the District Forum.  District Forum, vide its order order dated 22.2.2005, allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner and Respondent No.2 to pay jointly and severally Rs.2,27,550/- with interest at the rate of 9% from 1.7.2003 till realization.  Rs.5,000/- were awarded as compensation and Rs.1,000/- as costs.

          Aggrieved by the order passed by the District Forum, both the petitioner insurance company and Respondent No.2 finance company filed appeals before the State Commission.  State Commission dismissed the appeals.  It was held that in view of IMT-7 of the insurance policy, in case of cash loss on repair basis, the amount was to be paid to the loanee and only in the case of total loss, the amount could be paid to the loaner finance company.  Since in this case, the loss had been assessed on cash loss on repair basis, the amount was required to be paid to the complainant/Respondent No.1. 

Petitioner, being aggrieved, has filed the present Revision Petition.

One of the grounds taken was that the petitioner could not be asked to make double payment, i.e., one to the financer and other to the complainant/Respondent No.1.  During the course of arguments, counsel appearing for Respondent No.2 stated that the finance company had deposited the sum of Rs.2,77,291/- with the District Forum vide Demand Draft dated 7.8.2006 including the interest on the sum of Rs.2,27,550/-.  She has placed a photocopy of the draft of the aforesaid deposit made before the District Forum.

The District Forum is directed to release the sum of Rs.2,77,291/- deposited by the finance company to the complainant/Respondent No.1, if not already done, with accrued interest, if any.

Since the amount wrongly paid to the finance company has already be restituted to the complainant/Respondent No.1, the direction given by the fora below to the petitioner to pay the awarded amount to the respondent is set aside and the Revision Petition is dismissed as infructuous.

Copy to this order be sent to respondent no.1.