ORDER

Heard Ld. Counsel for the Revision Petitioner who was Opposite Party No. 1 in the Ld. District Forum.  The Complaint had been allowed by the District Forum in favour of the Respondent No. 1/Complainant with  a  direction   upon  the  Respondent  No.  2  “Cholamandalam  MS

                                                          -2-

General Insurance Co. Ltd.” to pay the amount of Rs. 3.00 lakhs to the Complainant as the admissible Insurance Claim alongwith certain other ancillary reliefs.  The aforesaid Order was challenged in Appeal No. 45 of 2016 by the said Opposite party No. 1/Respondent No. 2.  The Appeal was partially allowed by way of reducing the admissible Insurance Claim to Rs.2.25 lakhs instead of Rs. 3.00 lakhs.

2. It is seen from the Order passed by the Ld. District Forum that the present Petitioner had not appeared to contest the Complaint in spite of service of Notice, and was therefore proceeded against exparte. The Petitioner also did not challenge the Order of the District Forum by filing its own Appeal, and not even filed any reply from its side against the Appeal preferred by the Opposite Party No. 2/Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd.  On the other hand, it appears to have filed the Review Application being RA No. 01 of 2024 before the Ld. State Commission after a delay of 95 days in which it had sought modification of the Final Order passed in the Appeal by contending that it had been orally prayed on behalf of the Petitioner that the amount payable as the admissible Insurance Claim should not be given to the Complainant, but to the Petitioner since the Insured vehicle had been hypothecated with it.  No copy of the aforesaid Review Application has been filed alongwith this Revision Petition.
3. At any rate, the Review Application was dismissed by the Ld. State Commission not only on account of the delay of 95 days but also on merits by relying upon a decision in the case of “Dr. PrathapatiSubbareddy (deceased) and his legal representatives and Ors.  Vs. Special Duty Collector (LA), SLP (Civil) No. 31248/20218  2024 INS 286”.

-3-

4. This Commission also finds no merit in the instant Revision Petition as admittedly, the dispute between the Complainant and not the Petitioner against whom the Complainant had sought no substantive relief, would appear to be outside the purview of a ‘consumer’ dispute.  The Complaint was for realization of the admissible Insurance Claim from the Insurance Company, and the Petitioner was itself not the Insured party in the concerned Agreement. Even if the vehicle in question was hypothecated with the Petitioner, its remedy lay in recovering its known dues under appropriate legal provisions, and not by way of directly grabbing the Insurance Claim payable by the Insurance Company to the Insured person.
5. For the aforesaid reasons, this Commission finds no merits in the present Revision Petition which is accordingly dismissed without costs.