Haryana

StateCommission

MA/10/2018

Joshi Honda - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ms. Urmila - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Rajesh Verma, counsel for the applicant-opposite party No.3.

12 Sep 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                                      Miscellaneous Application No. 10 of 2018

                                      In First Appeal No.                   452 of 2017

                                      Date of the Institution:                       05.02.2018

                                      Date of Decision:                      12.09.2018

 

Joshi Honda, through its Managing Director, S.C.O. No.369, Sector-8, Panchkula.

•  

 

Versus

 

1.      Ms. Urmila, resident of House No.1256-P, Sector-21, Panchkula, Haryana-134109.

 

•  

 

2.      ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, having its registered office at The Statement, 4^th Floor, Plot No.149, Industrial Area, Phase-I, next to Hometel Hotel, Chandigarh (UT), Through its Manager.

 

                   …..Respondent/Appellant

 

 

 

CORAM:    Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

Shri Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

                   

Present:-    Shri Rajesh Verma, counsel for the applicant-opposite party No.3.

                   Ms. Nikita Garg, proxy counsel for Shri D.K. Singal, counsel for the respondent-complainant.

Shri N.K. Setia, counsel for the respondent-appellant. 

 

                                                          O R D E R

NAWAB SINGH, J. (ORAL)

 

          This order be read in continuation of the earlier order dated August 31^st, 2017 passed by this Commission in First Appeal No.452 of 2017 titled ‘ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited Versus Urmila and another’. Vide aforesaid order, it was ordered that Joshi Honda-opposite party No.3 (applicant) shall make the payment of Rs.22,085/- and handover the Honda Activa Scooter bearing registration No.HR-03R-7576 to Urmila-complainant without claiming any charges. It was also ordered that Rs.5,000/- litigation expenses shall also be paid to the complainant.

2.      The applicant has filed the present application stating that due to clerical mistake, the applicant was directed to pay Rs.22,085/- rather the ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company (Insurance Company)-opposite parties No.1 and 2 was to be directed to pay the said amount to the complainant, which has also been conceded by the counsel for the complainant. It was merely a clerical mistake. In view of this, it is ordered that Rs.22,085/- plus Rs.5,000/- total Rs.27,085/- shall be paid by the Insurance Company and not the applicant. Since, the statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- lying deposited with this Commission, the said amount be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules. The remaining amount of Rs.2,085/- has been paid in cash by Shri N.K. Setia, counsel for the Insurance Company to Ms. Nikita Garg, counsel for the complainant.

3.      Disposed of accordingly.

 

September 12th, 2018

Balbir Singh Judicial Member

Nawab Singh President

D.R.