ORDER : This is an appeal for setting aside order dated 5.11.2012 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (for short, 'the National Commission'), whereby the petition filed by the appellant for review of order dated 18.5.2011 passed in O.P. No.150 of 2000 was dismissed. 2. We have heard learned senior counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 3. The complaint filed by respondent no.1 for directing the appellant to pay compensation of Rs. 56/- lacs on account of damage caused to the embroidery machinery transported by the latter was partly allowed by the National Commission vide order dated 18.5.2011 and the appellant was directed to pay Rs. 21,90,499/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum with effect from 1.2.1999. 4. In the review petition filed by it, the appellant claimed that in view of the de-merger order passed by the Gujarat High Court it was not liable to pay the amount of compensation and respondent no.2 M/s Lift and Shift India Private Limited was duty bound to pay the entire amount of compensation. The National Commission negative the appellant's plea by recording the following observations: "6. On perusal of the order of the Gujarat High Court dated 112.12.2006 the minutes of Company Law Board the demerger scheme, there can hardly be any doubt that responsibility in respect of the transport division was taken over by the M/s Lift and Shift India Pvt. Limited w.e.f. 01.04.2006. However, in view of the arrangement between the parties to share the rights and liabilities, the two companies had decided to share the responsibilities in the ratio of 46.5% by M/s Natwar Parikh Industries Limited and 53.5% by M/s Lift and shift India Pvt. Ltd. We are told that this course has been acted upon by the parties even in some other cases which were filed before the Supreme Court. We are also informed that pursuant to the order passed by this Commission and going by the said inter se arrangement, the later had already remitted their share equivalent to 53.5% to the complainant after deducting the TDS. However, M/s Natwar Parikh Industries Limited have yet to pay their share of 46.5% to the complainant. We are also informed that pursuant to the order passed by this Commission and going by the said inter se arrangement, the later had already remitted their share equivalent to 53.5% to the complainant after deducting the TDS. However, M/s Natwar Parikh Industries Limited have yet to pay their share of 46.5% to the complainant. In fact immediately after passing of the order, M/s Lift and Shift India Pvt. Ltd. had addressed a communication dated 26.05.2011 to the present applicant asking them to remit their share of 46.5% to the complainant directly. On 30.05.2011 M/s Natwar Parikh Industries Limited replied to the said letter not disputing the existence of demerger scheme as approved by the Gujarat High Court and arrangement reached before the Company Law Board. However, they raised an objection that in the first instance, the entire amount as per the order dated 18.05.2011 should be paid by M/s Lift and Shift India Pvt. Ltd. and after doing so, they can raise a debit note on the applicant for recouping the amount to the extent of 46.5% from them (applicant). 7. During the course of his submission, learned counsel for the applicant tried to give an interpretation to the clause in regard to sharing of liability to the extent of 46.5% and 53.5% as only relatable to certain cost and expenditure which in our opinion cannot be accepted if we read the minutes of Company Law Board. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that only the clause of demerger scheme should be considered by this Commission to decide the liability of the petitioner and the minutes of Company Law Board cannot be referred to. We reject this contention because these find reference in the respective documents. In any case it is not denied that Natwar Industries are liable to share the liability to the extent of 46.5% even in respect of the award made by this Commission. That being the position, it would be too hyper technical to first make an order directing M/s Lift and Shift India Pvt. Ltd. to make the payment of the entire awarded amount and thereafter to issue debit note on the present applicant." 8. That being the position, it would be too hyper technical to first make an order directing M/s Lift and Shift India Pvt. Ltd. to make the payment of the entire awarded amount and thereafter to issue debit note on the present applicant." 8. In our opinion, the view taken by the National Commission on the appellant's liability to pay 46.5% of the total amount payable to respondent no.1 is legally correct and the impugned order does not call for interference under Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The appellant is allowed four weeks' time to pay the amount due to respondent no.1. It is however made clear that the appellant shall be free to lodge a claim with respondent no.2 in respect of amount payable to respondent no.1. Appeal dismissed.