ORDER (Per: Justice B.C. Kandpal, President): This revision petition under Section 17(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been preferred by the revisionist – insurance company against the order dated 05.08.2010 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun in Execution Application No. 29 of 2009, whereby the District Forum has directed that since the insurance company is not ready to accept the salvage of the vehicle brought by the applicant – complainant, the cheque of Rs. 2,75,500/- deposited by the insurance company be released in favour of the applicant – complainant. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the complainant – Sh. Janak Singh had filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Dehradun bearing consumer complaint No. 95 of 2000; Sh. Janak Singh Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and another. The said consumer complaint was decided by the District Forum per order dated 03.01.2006 and the insurance company was directed to pay the insured amount of Rs. 2,65,500/- to the complainant together with Rs. 10,000/- towards mental agony. The insurance company was given a right to take the salvage of the vehicle from the complainant. Aggrieved by the said order, the insurance company filed an appeal before this Commission bearing First Appeal No. 25 of 2006; The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Sh. Janak Singh and another and whereas being dissatisfied with the relief awarded by the District Forum, the complainant also preferred an appeal for enhancement bearing First Appeal No. 24 of 2006; Sh. Janak Singh Vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited and another. Both the said appeals were dismissed by this Commission vide order dated 03.02.2009 and it was also observed that the complainant shall deliver the salvage of the vehicle and hand over the registration certificate and other connected papers of the vehicle to the insurance company within 20 days. Since the order was not complied with by the insurance company and hence the complainant filed an execution application before the District Forum, Dehradun, which was registered as Execution Application No. 29 of 2009. 3. In the said execution application, the revisionist – insurance company deposited the cheque of Rs. 2,75,500/- and an application dated 08.07.2010 was moved on behalf of the insurance company that the said amount may not be released in favour of the applicant – complainant till he complies the order dated 03.02.2009 passed by this Commission. 4. 3. In the said execution application, the revisionist – insurance company deposited the cheque of Rs. 2,75,500/- and an application dated 08.07.2010 was moved on behalf of the insurance company that the said amount may not be released in favour of the applicant – complainant till he complies the order dated 03.02.2009 passed by this Commission. 4. The District Forum, on an appreciation of the material on record, vide impugned order dated 05.08.2010 directed that the cheque of Rs. 2,75,500/- deposited by the insurance company be released in favour of the applicant – complainant. Aggrieved by the said order, the insurance company has filed the present revision petition. 5. None appeared on behalf of respondent No. 2 – bank. We have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist – insurance company and respondent No. 1 – applicant and have also perused the record. 6. The District Forum, while deciding the consumer complaint No. 95 of 2000 per order dated 03.01.2006, observed that the insurance company is entitled to get the salvage of the vehicle from the complainant. This Commission also, while deciding the appeals filed by the insurance company and the complainant, observed in its order dated 03.02.2009 that the complainant shall deliver the salvage of the vehicle and hand over the registration certificate and other connected papers of the vehicle to the insurance company within 20 days. The applicant – complainant has specifically stated in the execution application that the insurance company is not ready to accept the papers and salvage of the vehicle. The applicant – complainant has categorically averred in para 3 of his affidavit dated 14.12.2009 (Paper No. 32) that on 04.12.2009, he brought the salvage of the vehicle from Samalta to the Divisional Office of the insurance company, but the insurance company refused to accept the same. There is no denial of the said averment from the side of the insurance company. The complainant has also averred in para 5 of his affidavit dated 04.08.2010 (Paper No. 33) that he has several times taken the salvage of the vehicle to the office of the insurance company, but they have refused to accept the same. There is also no denial of this averment of the complainant from the side of the insurance company. 7. There is also no denial of this averment of the complainant from the side of the insurance company. 7. As is stated above, the District Forum, while deciding the consumer complaint, has held the insurance company entitled to the salvage of the vehicle and this Commission has also directed the applicant – complainant to deliver the salvage of the vehicle to the insurance company and the record shows that the applicant – complainant has several times taken the salvage of the vehicle to the office of the insurance company, but they refused to accept the same. The perusal of the impugned order shows that the applicant – complainant has even brought the salvage of the vehicle before the District Forum on 19.07.2010, but the insurance company refused to accept the same. When the applicant – complainant was directed to deliver the salvage of the vehicle to the insurance company and he was ready to deliver the same to the insurance company and had several times taken the salvage of the vehicle to the office of the insurance company and even brought the same before the District Forum, but the insurance company was not ready to accept the same, the District Forum was perfectly justified in directing for release of the amount in favour of the applicant – complainant and the same can not be faulted with. 8. Learned counsel for the revisionist – insurance company cited a decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Garg Roller Flour Mills and others; II (2003) CPJ 84 (NC). In the said case, the complainant had sold the salvage of the vehicle and the complainant was held liable to pay the salvage value with interest to the insurance company. In the instant case, as is stated above, the applicant – complainant was always ready and willing to deliver the salvage of the vehicle to the insurance company, but it is the insurance company, who was not ready to accept the same. 9. The impugned order passed by the District Forum is perfectly in accordance with law and the District Forum has not exercised the jurisdiction not vested in it by law or has failed to exercise the jurisdiction so vested or has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. The revision petition being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. 10. The revision petition being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. 10. For the reasons aforesaid, revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.