MOHIT MALHOTRA Vs. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed against the orders dated 28.01.2010 and 19.07.2010 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as "State Commission") in First Appeal No. 158 of 2009, vide which an appeal against the order dated 16.02.2009 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chandigarh in complaint case No. 789/2008 was allowed.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that the complainant / petitioner is the owner of Toyota Corolla Car Model 2004, bearing registration No. PB 65 -C -4041, which was insured with the respondent / opposite party for the period from 26.09.2007 to 25.09.2008. The said vehicle met with an accident on 21.10.2007. As per the complainant, the said vehicle was in the name of Jitender Pal Singh and a written request for transfer of the policy was made to the opposite party on 29.10.2007. The opposite party / respondent appointed a surveyor, who assessed the loss as total loss of the vehicle in question, keeping in view the amount of estimate for repairs Rs. 7,76,745/ - as cost of parts and Rs. 72,000/ - for labour. However, the claim could not be settled by the opposite party, rather M/s. Emm Pee Motors, authorized dealers for Toyota cars sent a letter dated 25.3.2008 to the complainant / petitioner, in which it was stated that net liability of Rs. 3,60,611/ - was estimated to be borne by the opposite parties and the company sought Rs. 2,83,508/ - from the complainant to deliver the vehicle. The petitioner filed the consumer complaint No. 789/2008 before the District Forum, and the District Forum came to the conclusion that it was not a case of total loss. They directed the opposite parties to pay the amount of Rs. 3,60,611/ - to the complainant within thirty days along with Rs. 5,000/ - as cost of litigation.

(3.) AS per the head note, the complainant / petitioner has filed the case before the National Commission as appeal under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. However, since there is no provision for second appeal, the appeal filed by the complainant is being decided as revision petition. There was a delay of 172 days in filing the petition, which was ordered to be condoned vide order dated 28.01.2011, subject to payment of cost of Rs. 5,000/ - to be deposited with the Consumer -Legal -Aid account of this Commission.