ORDER
K.S. Gupta, J. (Presiding Member)
1. Respondent/complainant got his vehicle bearing registration No. KA 19-1163 insured with the petitioner for the period from 10.2.1998 to 9.2.1999. Vehicle was stolen on 28.10.1998. However, same was traced out by the police and was released by the Court in favour of respondent. Respondent alleged that he had incurred total amount of Rs. 66,975 towards repairs and replacement of missing parts of the vehicle. Surveyor appointed by the petitioner recommended payment only of Rs. 6,290. On non-settlement of claim for the amount spent, the respondent filed complaint which was contested by the petitioner. District Forum allowed the complaint with direction to the petitioner to pay said amount of Rs. 63,975 with interest, etc. to the respondent. Appeal against District Forum’s order filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the State Commission.
2. Copy of Surveyor’s report dated 29.10.1999 is at pp 33-40. Material portion of this report under the heading: “My comments on the above missing parts” is reproduced below:
Banashankari Police, Bangalore, have zeroed in on and seized the insured vehicle in Kolar a couple of months hence. Subsequently, the Mandya Court released the car and handed it to the insured. But in the interregnum, the insured has failed in making a mention of any of the missing parts as claimed by him with the underwriters, in a separate affidavit given to the police nor has it figured in the Panchanama which suggests that the insured had not so much as dropped a vague hint of protest about the missing parts either with the police or the Court. So, the extrapolation invariably leads to this that the parts claimed to have been missing by the insured vehicle, in fact, existed in the vehicle when he took it into his custody….
3. Aforesaid amount recommended by Surveyor does not include the cost of missing parts.
4. Dispute between the parties mainly centres around the value of missing parts. Mr. Santosh Paul for petitioner whom we have heard on admission, has not been able to satisfy us about the reasonableness of reasoning as given by the Surveyor above for disallowing the claim of missing parts. Respondent was not supposed to disclose the missing parts either to the Police or the Court which released the vehicle. Order passed by both Fora below would show that respondent had examined the person from and produced the bills issued by United Trading Corporation and Workshop Pvt. Ltd. for repairs as also cash memos regarding purchase of spare parts. In this backdrop, we do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by Fora below warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Revision petition is, therefore, dismissed.