IMPORTANT POINT
“Execution proceedings” - Execution proceedings under section 25(3) or section 27(1) of the Act 1986 are distinctively different from adjudication of a ‘consumer dispute’, they are separate independent proceedings.

ORDER

This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Act 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 30.10.2012 of the State Commission in appeal no. 1131 of 2007 arising out of the Order dated 27.04.2007 of the District Commission in complaint no. 483 of 2006.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the insurance co. (the petitioner herein), for the complainants (the respondents no. 1 and no. 2 herein) and for the bank (the respondents no. 3 and no. 4 herein). We have also perused the record including inter alia the Order dated 27.04.2007 of the District Commission, the impugned Order dated 30.10.2012 of the State Commission and the petition.

3. The matter relates to an insurance claim on the insured vehicle (a truck) getting burnt. The insurance co. informed the District Commission during the course of adjudication that it had already sanctioned and settled the claim at Rs. 9.96 lakh. The District Commission took note of the same. However, vide its Order dated 27.04.2007 it partly allowed the complaint and ordered the insurance co. to pay the “claimed amount” to the complainants. The complainants appealed before the State Commission. The State Commission vide its impugned Order dated 30.10.2012 partly allowed the appeal and ordered the insurance co. to pay the amount of Rs.9.96 lakh with interest at the rate of 9% per annum w.e.f. 04.01.2006 i.e. the date of a legal notice given by the complainant. (In the operative paragraph of the State Commission’s Order the date is written as ‘04.10.2006’; however, the intended date appears to be ‘04.01.2006’ since the same has been referred to by the State Commission in the body of its Order; ‘04.10.2006’ in the operative paragraph appears to be a typographical mistake.) The State Commission also ordered the bank not to charge garage charges, to charge interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the loan amount w.e.f. the date the loan was advanced till 08.12.2005, not to charge any overdue charges, hidden charges, penalty, etc. and to pay Rs.25,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony, harassment and loss of income. It provided Rs. 10,000/- as cost of litigation. It fixed a period of 30 days for compliance and stipulated for interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the appeal if compliance was not made within the specified period. Meanwhile, the insurance co. had already paid the settled amount of Rs. 9.96 lakh to the bank which had financed the subject vehicle and the bank had credited the same into the complainants’ loan account with it. The complainants had also put the District Commission’s Order dated 27.04. 2007 to execution. An Order dated 04.11.2009 was passed by the District Commission under Section 27 of the Act 1986 against which the insurance co. went for revision before the State Commission under section 17(1)(b). The revision filed by the insurance co. was disposed of by the State Commission vide an Order dated 16.01.2013 (which is not impugned herein).

4. This revision petition impugns the Order dated 30.10.2012 of the State Commission, with prayer to modify the award made by the State Commission by absolving the insurance co. to make any direct payment again to the complainants as the insurance co. has already fulfilled its contractual liability and has complied with the Order dated 27.04.2007 of the District Commission by making payment to the bank i.e. the financier and which payment has already been credited into the complainants’ loan account by the bank.

Accordingly the short point involved in the revision is whether the amount of Rs. 9.96 lakh against the claim ought to be paid again by the insurance co. to the complainants after it has already paid the same to the bank which had financed the subject vehicle and with which it was hypothecated.

5. The learned counsel for the insurance co. submits that the bank was made an opposite party (opposite parties no. 3 & 4) by the complainants in their complaint befo