1.      This revision petition has been filed by Vijay Somany, petitioner against the order dated 23.11.2016 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in RP No.90 of 2016.

2.      Brief facts of the case are that the vehicle of the petitioner was insured with the respondent Insurance Company for Rs.5,95,000/-.  During the currency of the insurance policy with validity from 9.9.2010 to 8.9.2011, the vehicle met with an accident on 25.11.2010.  The complainant filed a consumer case before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rewari, (in short ‘the District Forum’) and the District Forum vide its order dated 13.03.2013 dismissed the complaint.  Similarly, the appeal filed by the complainant was also dismissed vide order dated 23.05.2013 of the State Commission.  The complainant then filed revision petition before this Commission, which was partly allowed on 13.08.2014 as under:-

3.      In compliance of the above order passed by this Commission, the Insurance Company processed the claim and paid Rs.5,79,207/- to the complainant, which consisted of Rs.4,2,748/- as insurance amount and Rs.1,76,729/- as the interest.  Not satisfied with this settlement, the complainant filed an execution application before the District Forum for complying with the order dated 13.08.2014 passed by National Commission. The District Forum however, dismissed this execution application vide its order dated 14.7.2016 on the ground that the opposite party has already complied with the order passed by National Commission.  The complainant then preferred an appeal before the State Commission, which was also dismissed vide its order dated 23.11.2016.

4.      Hence the present revision petition.

5.      Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.  Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that in compliance of the order dated 13.08.2014 of this Commission, the opposite party was required to process the claim as per the conditions of the policy.  It was a case of total loss as would be clear from the surveyor’s report.  The learned counsel mentioned that the surveyor in his report has assessed the value of repair to be about Rs.7,09,650/-, which was more than 75% of the IDV. One of the policy conditions is that if the repair charges are assessed to be more than 75% of the IDV, then it will be treated as a case of total loss.  Hence, the complainant is entitled to full IDV of the vehicle.

6.      On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/opposite parties stated that the issue relating to surveyor’s report or any assessment cannot be opened in the revision petition filed against the order passed in the execution petition.  In the execution, it is only to be seen whether the final order of the consumer forum has been complied with or not. As it would be clear from the order dated 13.08.2014 of this Commission, that it was ordered by the Commission to process the insurance claim of the complainant and to pay 12% interest on the claim amount.  The Insurance Company has finally assessed the claim and a total amount of Rs.4,02,748/- along with interest of Rs.1,76,729/- totalling to Rs.5,79,207/- has already been paid to the complainant and on this ground only, both the fora below have not accepted the contention of the complainant and the execution application has been dismissed.

7.      I have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by both the parties and have examined the material on record.  This is a revision petition filed against the order of the State Commission wherein the order of the District Forum dismissing the execution application has been upheld.  The execution application was filed for execution of the order dated 13.08.2014 passed by this Commission.  This Commission has only given a direction to the opposite parties/respondents to process the insurance claim and to pay interest @12% p.a. from the date of complaint of the complainant till payment.  The Insurance Company has already complied with this order and has processed the claim and has paid Rs.5,79,207/- to the complainant. Execution of order dated 13.08.2014 passed by this Commission is complete and therefore, the District Forum and the State Commission have rightly dismissed the execution application filed by the complainant.  The issue of amount cannot be raised in the execution application, when the order to be executed does not contain any order in respect of any amount of the insurance claim.

8.      Based on the above discussion, I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order dated 23.11.2016 of the State Commission, which calls for any interference from this Commission.  Revision Petition No.674 of 2017 is accordingly dismissed.