State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
National Insuracne Company Ltd., vs Smt. Sampuran Kaur on 11 January, 2012
BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SOLAN, H
H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA.
Revision Petition No:
02/2011
Date
of Decision: 11.01.2012
National Insurance Company Limited,
Divisional Office, Gurdaspur Road, Pathankot,
District Gurdaspur, Punjab,
Through its Divisional Manager, Himland Hotel,
Circular Road, Shimla.
Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Sampuran Kaur,
Wife of Shri Sanjeev Kuamr Mattu,(Bawa),
Resident of Bassi, Tehsil Jogindernagar,
District Mandi, H.P.
Respondent
Coram
Honble
Mr. Justice Surjit Singh (Retd.), President
Honble
Mr. Chander Shekhar Sharma, Member
Honble
Mrs. Prem Chauhan, Member.
Whether
approved for reporting?
For the Petitioner: Mr.
Jagdish Thakur, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. S. Bhushan
Singh Chandel, Advocate.
O R D E R:
Justice Surjit Singh (Retd.), President (Oral) In the present revision petition, Under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment revision petitioner has assailed the order dated 22.02.2011, Annexure P-8, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandi, whereby an application moved by the respondent for directing the revision petitioner to receive the salvage of the accidented vehicle and to pay the value of such salvage has been allowed.
2. Respondent got her Maruti Car insured with the revision petitioner for own damage. Vehicle met with an accident. Respondent claimed insurance money. On total loss basis, the damage was assessed at `1,99,356/-. Salvage of the vehicle was valued at `75,000/-. Claim of the respondent having been repudiated, a complaint was filed by him, under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The same was allowed and an order was passed for payment of `1,99,356/- by the revision petitioner to the respondent, on the condition of respondent handing over the salvage to the revision petitioner and also transferring its ownership in its favour. Order attained finality, as no appeal was preferred.
3. Respondent filed execution petition when the aforesaid amount of insurance money was not paid to her, despite Forums order. Warrant of attachment of the property of the revision petitioner was issued by the Forum, in execution proceedings. That order was challenged by filing revision petition before this Commission. This Commission passed order dated 07.01.2008, copy Annexure P-3. Commission ordered that since salvage had not been handed over by the respondent, she was not entitled to the amount claimed. It was further ordered that in the alternative respondent can pray to the Forum to deduct the cost of the salvage, out of the awarded amount and receive the balance amount. It was also ordered that in case revision petitioner wanted the salvage of vehicle to be transferred in its name, the Registration and Licensing Authority will transfer the same in favour of the insurance company (revision petitioner) on the basis of duplicate sale letter, which had already been received by it.
4. Respondent then moved an application before the Forum in the execution petition that value of salvage could be deducted and the remaining amount paid to her. She also stated in the application that she would be taking up the matter regarding return of the salvage separately. That application came to be heard by the Forum on 26.05.2008. It was stated during the course of the hearing of the said application that the complainant had agreed to have the cost of salvage deducted from the awarded amount, which according to the surveyor had been assessed at `75,000/-. In view of the statement of the respondent made through her counsel, application was disposed of with an order to the revision petitioner to deposit the awarded amount minus the value of salvage within one month. Revision petitioner complied with that order and the amount deposited by it was then paid to the respondent.
5. Respondent then moved another application for modifying the aforesaid order dated 26.05.2008 in the fashion that the revision petitioner be directed to receive the salvage and to pay the value thereof which had been deducted as per order dated 26.05.2008, sought to be got modified . That application was dismissed by the learned Forum vide order dated 16.06.2009, Annexure P-5, holding that it did not have the power to review its own order. Respondent then moved another application seeking a direction to the revision petitioner to receive the salvage and get the vehicle transferred and after such transfer to pay the salvage value to her. That application has been allowed by the Forum vide order dated 22.02.2011, Annexure P-8. Revision petitioner is aggrieved by this order.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
7. It is true that in the application, which the respondent submitted to the Forum, which is available on the record of the Execution Petition No.19/2008, summoned by us from the Forum, respondent had stated that she would be agitating the matter regarding salvage separately and in the mean while, the awarded amount be paid to her after deducting the value of salvage, but when the order dated 26.05.2008, Annexure P-4, was passed, she stated through her counsel that she had agreed to receive the awarded amount after deduction of the value of salvage, meaning thereby that the salvage was not to be returned to the revision petitioner. Now, when there had been an agreement between the parties, to which reference is there in the aforesaid order, Annexure P-4, that the respondent was to get the awarded amount, less the value of salvage, she could not have been permitted to re-agitate the issue and seek return of salvage and recovery of salvage value by moving a fresh application. Learned Forum has not taken into account this aspect of the matter while passing the impugned order.
8. Above stated position apart, we are of the view that this Commission while passing the order dated 07.01.2008, Annexure P-3, gave option to the respondent to return the salvage and receive the entire amount and said that if the salvage was not returned, she would not be entitled to the amount claimed. Second option was to seek the awarded amount minus the value of salvage. She opted for receiving the awarded amount less value of salvage. By exercising this option she lost the other choice to ask for the payment of value of salvage by directing the revision petitioner to accept the salvage and to get it transferred.
9. In view of the above stated position, we allow the present revision petition and set aside the impugned order dated 22.02.2011 of learned Forum and dismiss the application of the respondent, on which the aforesaid order has been passed by the Forum.
One copy of this order be sent to each of the parties, free of cost, as per Rules.
(Justice Surjit Singh) {Retd.} President (Chander Shekhar Sharma) Member (Prem Chauhan) Member January 11, 2012.
NMehta)