IMPORTANT POINT
Order does not suffer from illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error, not justify intervention in exercise of powers under S. 21(b) of CP Act. 1986.

V.B. Gupta, Presiding Member—Sh. Naresh Bedi/Complainant filed a Consumer Complaint before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, New Delhi (for short, ‘District Forum’) in year 2005 on the grounds, that he is owner of vehicle Scorpio bearing registration no.DL-4CP-5706. This vehicle was insured with United Indian Insurance Co. Ltd./Opposite Party for a sum of Rs.3,90,000/- for the period from 07.08.2004 to 06.08.2005. It is stated, that this vehicle was stolen on 23.08.2004. Police case was registered and insurance company was informed through fax on 24.08.2004. Thereafter, claim was lodged with the insurance company. It is the case of complainant, that he gave all the required information including untrace report to the insurance company. Instead of settling the claim, insurance company harassed him unnecessarily. Thereafter, complaint was filed praying that insurance company be directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,90,000/- being the insurance claim on account of theft of the vehicle and Rs.1,10,000/- by way of damages suffered on account of non-payment of insurance claim, along with interest @ 12% per annum from 23.08.2004 till payment besides costs.

2. The complaint was resisted by the insurance company, which in its reply took the plea that there is no deficiency on its part as complainant did not provide the final closure report under Section 173 Cr. P.C. which is essential for deciding the claim.

3. District Forum vide order dated 07.09.2007, allowed the complaint and passed following directions;

“1. OP shall take the car from P.S. Sarhali, and make get the transferred in his name.

2. The OP will pay Rs.3,90,000/- insurance amount to the complainant and the complainant will sign letter of subrogation, letter to transport authorities for transferring the title in the name of OP and all of the documents necessary in this behalf. The complainant will have no right or title as the same is recovered. The car is now stated to be lying in PS. Sarhali, Distt. Amritsar, Punjab.

3. On account of deficiency in service, mental agony and harassment, OP will pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant towards compensation.

4. OP will pay Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation.”

4. Being aggrieved, Insurance Company filed (Appeal No.816 of 2007) before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (for short, ‘State Commission’), which vide impugned order dated 12.12.2008, disposed of the same in the following terms;

“1. Respondent/complainant shall take over the possession of the vehicle in question immediately on superdari.

2. Appellant-Insurance Company shall pay Rs.2 lacs as compensation for the loss and damage suffered by the vehicle and for mental agony, harassment and delay in processing the claim of the respondent.”

5. Not satisfied with the order of the State Commission, both parties filed separate Revision Petitions. Insurance Company filed (Revision Petition No.1455 of 2009) whereas, Complainant filed (Revision Petition No.3513 of 2009).

6. Since, these revision petitions arise from common impugned order, the same are being disposed of by this single order.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. It is submitted by learned counsel for Complainant, that complainant is entitled to 75% of the value of the vehicle, even as per the internal guidelines of the insurance company. Further, after inspecting the vehicle on the order of the District Forum, Insurance Company failed to give any valuation of the damages, thereby causing more delay and harassment to the complainant for which he deserves compensation. Since, vehicle has been recovered, complainant is entitled to receive the vehicle in the same legal position as it was at the time of insurance it or at the time of theft. Moreover, complainant has spent about Rs.35,000/- in recovering the vehicle and bringing the same to New Delhi.

9. On the other hand, learned counsel for Insurance Company has submitted that State Commission has committed grave