Ajit Bharihoke, Presiding Member—This revision is directed against the order of the State Commission dated 24.12.2012 whereby the State Commission accepted the appeal preferred by respondent no.1 complainant and set aside the order of the District Forum dated 02.05.2011.

2. Briefly stated the facts relevant for the disposal of this revision petition are that complainant respondent no.1 purchased a tractor after obtaining finance from the petitioner (OP no.2) in the consumer complaint. The tractor was insured with respondent no.2 insurance company. During the validity of the insurance policy, the tractor was stolen. The theft was reported to the police and the information was also given to the police as also respondent no.2 insurance company. The insurance claim filed by the complainant respondent no.1 was not settled. Therefore, respondent no.1 complainant was compelled to file consumer complaint impleading respondent no.1 insurer as the appellant (financer) as OPs.

3. Respondent no.1 insurer contested the consumer complaint by filing a written statement. There is no need to detail the pleas taken by respondent no.1 insurer in the written statement. The appellant opposite party no.2 also filed written statement in response to the complaint filed by respondent no.1 wherein the appellant no.2 prayed for rejection of consumer complaint with heavy costs.

4. Learned District Forum on consideration of the pleadings of the parties as also the evidence produced allowed the complaint vide order dated 28.02.2011 with following directions:

“1. The Opposite Party No.1 may settle the claim of the complainant within one month as per the terms and conditions of the policy.

2. The opposite party no.1 may pay a sum of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to the complainant on account of mental annoyance and also pay a sum of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand) towards cost of the litigation within one month.

3. The opposite party no.1 shall also be liable to pay interest @ 8% per annum on the compensation amount, whichever is payable to the complainant from the date of filing of the complaint dated 02.07.2009 till its realization.

4. Complaint filed against the non-applicant no.2 has been rejected”.

5. The aforesaid order of the District Forum has become final.

6. Pursuant to the above said order, respondent no.2 insurance company settled the claim of respondent Chetram and submitted a cheque of Rs.3,58,731/- alongwith an application claiming that the order of the District Forum has been complied.

7. As the matter rested thus, the petitioner claiming to have lien over the insurance claim for the reason that he is a financer filed an application with following prayer:

“In view of the above facts it is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to order National Insurance Company to release the claim amount in favour of Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. and if they deposit in the office this Hon’ble Court then same may kindly be released in favour of the Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. and further be pleased to hold claim amount till the outcome of arbitration award and also hold the claim amount because the complainant is only entitled for the money after furnishing no dues certificate from the Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. in the interest of justice”.

8. The District Forum Jabalpur (M.P.) after serving notice on the complainant opposite party no.1 allowed the application with following observations:

“In the aforesaid letter also, there is mentioning of payment of the compensation amount by the Insurance Company to Mahindra & Mahindra and in regards to the said letter, the Applicant has not contended before this Forum that he has not written to the Insurance Company. Similarly, the objection taken by the applicant that M/s Mahindra & Mahindra initiate the recovery proceedings as per rules and in the present case, the cheque of the deposited amount towards stolen of tractor trolley was d