NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. 1627 OF 2006
(Against the Order dated 29/03/2006 in Appeal No. 260/2003 of the State Commission Uttaranchal)
1. MODH.NASIMR/O NAI BASTI HALDWANI DISTT. NAINITAL
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.NAINITAL ROAD HALDWANI DISTT. NAINITAL
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA ,PRESIDING MEMBERHON'BLE MR. VINAY KUMAR ,MEMBER
For the Petitioner :
NEMO
For the Respondent :
NEMO
Dated : 05 Aug 2010
ORDER
This revision petition is against order dated 29.3.2006 of the State Commission, Uttranchal passed in R.P. No.2/2005 which is reflected in the heading of the present petition as also in ground XIII of the revision. However, in the prayer, the petitioner seeks setting aside of order dated 14.7.2003 passed in Appeal No.260/03 by the State Commission and seeks award of claim of the petitioner on repair basis. This relief obviously cannot be granted since no condonation application has been filed to challenge the said order dated 14.7.2003, which had attained finality after which, the petitioner had filed execution before the District Forum in which orders were passed on 28.10.03 and 20.10.04 which had been challenged by the Insurance Company before the State Commission in Revision No.02/05 which is subject matter of challenge in this revision. We have perused the application for condonation of delay vis-à-vis order dated 29.3.2006 passed in Revision No.02/05 and we condone delay of 13 days accordingly. A brief background is necessary at this stage in order to understand the controversy. The District Forum in order dated 13.3.2003 has referred to the report of the Surveyor, who had inspected this vehicle. In his report of 18.08.2000, the loss has been assessed at Rs.2,76,215.50 on repair basis and Rs.2,01,000/- on total loss basis. The difference is due to the fact that the salvage value under the repair option is assessed as Rs.14,000/- and under the total loss option between Rs.60,000/- to Rs.70,000/-. The District Forum in its order dated 13.03.2003 awarded compensation of Rs.2,01,000/- on total loss basis and Rs.1500/- towards cost to the petitioner with 10% interest from the date of filing of the petition. While making the order the District Forum has also noted that the Surveyors report was not only accepted by the Forum but also by counsels for both the parties. In the appeal against the above order of District Forum, the State Commission came to the conclusion that there was no force in it. The appeal was accordingly dismissed on 14.7.2003, rejecting the plea for enhancement of compensation and rate of interest. In the present revision petition before us, the revision petitioner i.e. original complainant has sought to challenge the order dated 29.03.2006 passed by State Commission claiming that the District Forum had wrongly concluded that the revision petitioner had given his consent for compensation amount of Rs.2,01,000/- and that his appeal was wrongly dismissed by the State Commission on this ground. This issue has very clearly been addressed before the State Commission in order dated 14.7.2003 in Appeal No. 260/2003 filed by the present revision petitioner. It has observed that it was a case of consent order and not a collusive decree. The State Commission has noted that - It is nowhere written in this ground of appeal that he never given any consent letter. The complainant has also filed an affidavit along with his memorandum of appeal, but not a single word has been said in the affidavit that no such consent was given. The petitioner had filed execution proceedings for implementation of final order dated 14.7.2003 passed by the State Commission. The District Forum had initially passed an order dated 28.10.2003 directing the decree holder petitioner to deposit the salvage of vehicle within 15 days in the light of the judgement dated 13.3.2003 of the Consumer Forum or Rs.14,000/- may be deducted from the decretal amount. However, the District Forum found that it had no jurisdiction to add in the judgement by order dated 28.10.2003 for the deposit of salvage or deduction of Rs.14,000/- and the order was recalled. The District Forum had no jurisdiction to go behind the decree and pass orders contrary to the judgement, which had attained finality or to review its order. The Insurance Company had filed Revision No.02/05 before the State Commission and the State Commission after reviewing the entire background of the litigation allowed the revision and directed to return the salvage within a period of one month and in the event of his failure to do so, a sum of Rs.60,000/- shall be adjusted from the compensation payable to the complainant/respondent. The order of the District Forum dated 13.3.2003 and order of the State Commission in Appeal No.260/03 dated 14.7.03 clearly show that the compensation was awarded in favour of the complainant in view of the Surveyors report on total loss basis that is to say Rs.2,01,000/- in which case the salvage value was considered as Rs.60,000/- to Rs.70,000/-. Taking the said fact into consideration, the State Commission in order dated 29.3.2006 in Revision No.02/2005 held that the compensation was awarded on total loss basis and the salvage was assessed between Rs.60,000/- to Rs.70,000/- and as such, the District Forum ought to have given a direction for adjustment of minimum of the two figure i.e. Rs.60,000/- from the compensation payable to the complainant in compliance of the order dated 13.3.2003. It was further stated that there was no question of adjustment of sum of Rs. 14,000/- only against the compensation payable to the complainant but sum of Rs.60,000/- as value of the salvage was required to be adjusted against the compensation payable. The order of the State Commission is perfectly right. In view of the above, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order dated 29.3.06 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttaranchal in R.P. No. 02/2005. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed with no orders as to costs.
......................JR.K. BATTAPRESIDING MEMBER ......................VINAY KUMARMEMBER
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
