New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs KAMLESH KANWAR

THIS revision is directed against the order dated 21.11.2002 of H.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla dismissing revision against the order dated 27.11.2001 of a District Forum.

FACTS giving rise to this revision lie in a narrow compass. Respondent/complainant owned vehicle No. HP-11-1181 which was insured with petitioner/opposite party- Insurance company. During the currency of policy, vehicle met with an accident on 19.6.1998. On claim not being settled, respondent filed complaint which was contested by the petitioner. Vide order dated 12.6.2001, the District Forum allowed complaint with direction to the petitioner to pay Rs. 2,93,500/- with interest subject to return of salvage and transfer of RC of the vehicle by the respondent. This order having not being challenged by either of the parties attained finality. In execution proceedings the District Forum passed order dated 27.11.2001 which notices that respondent is to collect salvage from Preet Automobiles SCF, 435, Motor Market Complex, Manimajra. This order further notices that RC was handed over to the petitioner through Counsel for transfer in its name. Affidavit in connection with transfer was also supplied by the respondent to the petitioner through Counsel as may be seen from the letter order dated 11.12.2001. Petitioner alleged that vehicle in question was hypothecated with UCO bank and certain amount was due to it from the respondent and till ''No Objection Certificate'' was issued by bank, the RC could not be transferred in favour of petitioner. Petitioner further alleged that in terms of aforesaid order dated 12.6.2001, salvage was to be returned by the respondent and petitioner was not supposed to collect it from said Preet Automobiles . Therefore, on both these counts the petitioner challenged the order dated 27.11.2001 by filing revision petition before the State Commission.

Repelling said two-fold stand of the petitioner, the State Commission dismissed the revision by the order under challenge.

WE have heard Mr. Pankaj Kumar for petitioner and Mr. Harish Jaidka for respondent. It is settled law that an Executing Court cannot go behind decree. In terms of aforesaid order dated 12.6.2001, it was for the respondent to transfer RC in favour of petitioner - Insurance Company and also to return salvage, the value whereof was Rs. 1,15,000/-, to the petitioner-Insurance Company. It is not in dispute that vehicle in question was hypothecated with UCO Bank and certain amount was due to bank from the respondent. Thus, mere handing over of RC and filing of affidavit by the respondent was not enough. The respondent has to obtain NOC from the bank clearing the outstanding amount. Further, it is for the respondent to deliver salvage and petitioner was not obliged to collect it from said Preet Automobiles. Obviously, the order of State Commission cannot be legally sustained and deserves to be set aside in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

RESULTANTLY, while allowing revision, aforesaid order of State Commission is set aside. District Forum will proceed with the execution for recovery of awarded amount against the petitioner only after RC is transferred in the name of petitioner and salvage returned by the respondent as per order dated 12.6.2001. No order as to cost. Revision partly allowed.