1. THIS revision petition emanates from Execution Application No. 14 of 2001 filed by the petitioner in consumer complaint No. 20 of 1996. The petitioner herein is the original complainant and decree holder. The respondent-insurance company is the opposite party and judgment debtor. The petitioner had preferred a complaint before the District Forum for non-settlement of insurance claim in respect of theft of 34 gas cylinders. The complaint was allowed by the District Forum vide its order dated 19.9.1997 whereby the respondent-company was directed to pay an amount of Rs.51,000/- alongwith interest @18% per annum and cost of Rs.1,000/-. The award was based on the claim of loss of 34 cylinders of LPG @ Rs.1500/- per cylinder. The matter was brought before the Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panaji (''State Commission'' for short) by the respondent-company in appeal. By its order dated 16.12.1998, the State Commission partly allowed the appeal and directed the respondent-company to satisfy the entire liability of the petitioner-complainant towards Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited within three months and see that the company-Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL) issues communication regarding full discharge to the complainant. In default, the State Commission directed that the order of the District Forum would stand confirmed. This direction was given by the State Commission based on submission made by the petitioner''s-advocate that though the petitioner had received the debit note from HPCL, it had not paid any amount to it.
2. PURSUANT to the above order of the State Commission, the insurance company sent a letter on 10.2.1999 to HPCL, Belgaum inter alia requesting them to issue fresh debit note in favour of the petitioner-complainant to enable the payment of the amount of Rs.18,700/-. It was followed by a reminder sent by the insurance company on 1.4.199. The HPCL sent a reply on 30.4.1999 informing the respondent that an amount of Rs.35,200/- was recovered from the petitioner for the loss of 64 gas cylinders @ Rs.550/- per cylinder and that the amount had already been paid by the petitioner vide cash receipt No. 054580 dated 1.12.1992. The respondent then immediately issued a letter to the petitioner/complainant on 3.5.1999 bringing this information received from the HPCL to the notice of the petitioner -complainant and also stating that in view of this information, the liability of the respondent-insurance company under the policy amounted only to Rs.18,700/- being the amount paid by the complainant to the HPCL for 34 gas cylinders @550/- per cylinder and accordingly sent a cheque of Rs.18,700/- in full and final settlement of its liability. The cheque was, however, refused and returned by the petitioner/complainant vide its letter dated 11.5.1999 on the ground that the respondent -insurance company was supposed to act within three months of the date of the order dated 14.12.19989 which period expired on 14.3.1999 and hence he refused to accept the cheque and insisted on compliance of the order passed by the District Forum.
3. THE petitioner-complainant then initiated the execution proceedings by filing the execution application in question which was allowed by the District Forum vide its order dated 16.8.2007 in terms of the following directions:
"The JD hereby is directed to pay to the DH the sum of Rs.51,000/- together with interest as specified in the impugned order of this Forum dt. 19.9.1997. The interest payable shall be calculated as on the date of the payment. The said payment shall be made as expeditiously as possible and in any case within three weeks from the date of this order."
4. AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid order on the execution application of the complainant, the insurance company filed a revision petition No. 13 of 2007 before the State Commission, which was allowed by the State Commission vide its order dated 24.7.2009 in terms of the following directions:-
"Accordingly, the order dated 16.8.2007 impugned in this petition is set aside. The revision petition is allowed. The petitioner is hereby directed to pay the respondent the sum of Rs.18700/- within thirty days failing which, it shall carry interest @12% per annum, if paid thereafter. In the circumstances, there shall be no costs."
5. IT is against this impugned order of the State Commission that the petitioner-complainant who is the decree holder, has filed the present revision petition..
6. WE have heard Ms. Triveni Potekar, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. S. L. Gupta, Advocate with Mrs. A. Subhashini, learned Amicus Curiea for the respondent and perused the record.
7. ADMITTING the correspondence between the respondent-insurance company and the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited following the order of the State Commission dated 16.12.1998, the main ground on which the petitioner would assail the impugned order is to the effect that the letter dated 30.4.1999 issued by the HPCL to the respondent-insurance company nowhere spells out that the payment which was earlier made was in respect of the cylinders which are subject matter of the present litigation between the petitioner and the respondent. The other limb of argument of learned counsel is that the cheque sent by the respondent-insurance company in settlement of its liability was refused and returned by the petitioner vide his letter dated 11.5.1999 because the respondent was supposed to act within three months of the date of the order dated 14.12.1998 of the State Commission which period expired on 14.3.1999 and hence he refused to accept the cheque and insisted on compliance of the order of the District Forum, which stood confirmed with the passage of time limit of three months laid down by the State Commission. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submitted that this background leading to the filing of the execution application which was rightly allowed by the District Forum was ignored by the State Commission while giving its finding against the petitioner and modifying the order of the District Forum. He submitted that the order of the State Commission dated 14.12.1998 having become final, the State Commission erred in going beyond the terms of this order by entertaining fresh issue raised by the respondent-company.
8. PER contra, learned counsel for the respondent pointed out that the State Commission in its impugned order has dealt with both these aspects brought out by the learned counsel for the petitioner and as such the impugned order is based on correct factual position brought out before the State Commission and hence no fault could be found with the impugned order.
9. PERUSAL of the impugned order indicates that the entire factual position regarding the action taken by the respondent-company to comply with the final order of the District Forum has been considered in great detail by the State Commission in the impugned order. The contents of the letter dated 30.4.1999 referred to by the State Commission in para 8 of the impugned order leave us in no doubt that the payment which was effected by the petitioner was in respect of reported loss of 64 cylinders including 34 cylinders in question for which also the loss was recovered by the HPCL @550/- per cylinder from the petitioner. As regards the letter dated 8.1.1999, the State Commission has considered the same and recorded its reasoning while rejecting the contention of the petitioner in para 12 of its impugned order. Except the appreciation of this factual position which has been duly considered by the State Commission, there is no other legal issue involved in the revision petition. Nothing has been placed on record by the petitioner by way of proof of payment of more than Rs.550/- per cylinder to the HPCL in respect of 34 cylinders in question. Since the correct factual position was not appreciated by the District Forum, the State Commission rightly modified its order and has given reasons in support of the same. We do not find any jurisdictional error on the part of the State Commission while passing impugned order. We therefore, do not see any substance in the revision petition, which stands dismissed but with no order as to costs.
