ORDER : Rajesh Bindal, J. The present writ petition has been filed impugning the order dated 28.03.2018 passed by the Jammu and Kashmir State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jammu (for short ‘the Commission’), whereby appeal filed against the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jammu (for short ‘the District Forum’) dated 13.02.2016, was dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that one Maruti 800 car, bearing registration No. JK02X-4578 owned by the respondent No.1 met with an accident on 07.02.2012. The vehicle was brought to the workshop of the petitioners on 10.02.2012. Estimate for repairs was prepared by the petitioners on 25.02.2012. It was the calculation to make the vehicle road worthy. The amount estimated was Rs. 1,20,580/-. The estimate did not have any relation with the amount which may be reimbursed by the insurance company on account of various conditions in the policy. The insurance company was informed. Surveyor was appointed on 06.03.2012. He inspected the vehicle on 08.03.2012 and submitted his report on 18.06.2012. The vehicle had been insured for a sum of Rs. 97,380/- and the condition in the policy provided that in case the cost of repair is more than 75% of the insured value, the vehicle shall be treated as total loss. The surveyor had estimated the claim of Rs. 60,674/- as the same did not exceed 75% of the insured value, the insurance company did not declare the vehicle as total loss. 3. It was further submitted that the petitioners sent a communication to the respondent No.1/the owner of the vehicle and asked him to deposit Rs. 25,000/- as advance so as to enable the petitioners to start repairs of the vehicle, as insurance company had assessed the claim only to the tune of Rs. 60,674/-. The delay was for the reason that the respondent No.1 was persuading the insurance company to declare the vehicle as total loss. The aforesaid letter of the petitioners was replied to by the respondent No.1/owner on 15.03.2013 consenting to the repairs. It was followed by another letter dated 02.04.2013. Thereafter, on 28.05.2013, the respondent No.1/owner deposited a sum of Rs. 2,500/- towards repairs of the vehicle. After complete repairs, final bill to the tune of Rs. 1,23,111/- was prepared. In fact the vehicle had been repaired in the year 2013 only. It was followed by another letter dated 02.04.2013. Thereafter, on 28.05.2013, the respondent No.1/owner deposited a sum of Rs. 2,500/- towards repairs of the vehicle. After complete repairs, final bill to the tune of Rs. 1,23,111/- was prepared. In fact the vehicle had been repaired in the year 2013 only. However, the billing and other formalities were kept pending on the request of the petitioners as he was persuading the insurance company to declare the vehicle as total loss. This is even evident from the fact that the respondent No.1 filed a complaint before the District Forum with a prayer for reimbursement of loss and payment of compensation. 4. The argument is that the District Forum committed an error in allowing the complaint filed by the respondent No.1. It declared the vehicle as total loss while calculating the estimate prepared by the surveyor appointed by the insurance company and the amount of advance demanded by the petitioners for carrying out the repairs. Taking the total amount as more than 75%, the vehicle was declared as total loss. In appeal filed by the petitioners before the State Commission, it was wrongly recorded that the insurance company had agreed to pay Rs. 25,000/-. Some error was committed. The insurance company was not aggrieved against the orders passed by the authorities below. While deciding the appeal the State Commission had granted liberty to the petitioners to seek relief from the insurance company. The petitioners have been left in dilemma. The owner of the vehicle got the claim of total loss of vehicle from the insurance company. He is happy. The petitioners carried out the repairs of the vehicle and bill for the same was raised to the tune of Rs. 1,23,111/- but the same is not being paid to the petitioners and no one has come forward to take delivery of the vehicle. Once the vehicle has been repaired with the consent of the owner, he is bound to pay repair charges and take delivery of the vehicle. It is further submitted that the repaired car which is standing in the workshop of the petitioners has practically becomes a salvage as the same is not in use for more than six years. 5. On the other hand, Mr. It is further submitted that the repaired car which is standing in the workshop of the petitioners has practically becomes a salvage as the same is not in use for more than six years. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Sunil Sethi, learned senior counsel for the respondent No.1 submitted that it is a strange case where the insured value of the vehicle was merely Rs. 97,380/- and on account of accident, the estimate given for carrying out repairs by the petitioners was Rs. 1,20,580/-. The respondent No.1 never consented to the repair of the vehicle as there was dispute pending before the District Forum. In fact, the vehicle was never repaired. False bill was raised more than two years thereafter on 14.10.2015. After the award of the District Forum, the respondent No.1 has already been paid Rs. 97,380/- by the insurance company as the vehicle has been declared as total loss and the ownership thereof has been transferred in the name of the insurance company. There was no communication from the side of petitioners either to the respondent No.1 or to the insurance company that the vehicle in question has been repaired and the delivery thereof be taken. It is strange to note that argument has been raised by the petitioners that the vehicle, for which amount claimed for repairs by the petitioners is more than the insured value, has become salvage in last six years while the same is parked with the petitioners. He further submitted that so called estimate of repairs of Rs. 1,20,580/- was never intimated to the respondent No.1. It is not even pleaded by the petitioners that the same was given to the insurance company. Deposit of Rs. 2,500/- by the respondent No.1 was not consent for carrying out the repairs. 6. Mr. Suneel Malhotra, learned counsel appearing for the insurance company submitted that the surveyor appointed by the company had assessed the loss at Rs. 60,674/-, which the insurance company agreed to pay to the insured. There is no agreement by the insurance company with the petitioners. In fact, the vehicle was not a total loss. However, still as directed by the District Forum and to avoid any future dispute, insurance company accepted the award and paid the amount to the insured. 60,674/-, which the insurance company agreed to pay to the insured. There is no agreement by the insurance company with the petitioners. In fact, the vehicle was not a total loss. However, still as directed by the District Forum and to avoid any future dispute, insurance company accepted the award and paid the amount to the insured. Thereafter the company is entitled to the salvage which the owner as well as the petitioners had not delivered to the insurance company. As regards payment of amount for repairs is concerned, it is a dispute between the petitioners and the respondent No.1. The insurance company has nothing to do. 7. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the paper book. 8. It is a case in which apparently all the parties are at fault. The facts of the case speak volumes about the same. Maruti 800 Car bearing Registration No. JK02X-4578 was owned by the respondent No.1. The vehicle was insured with the respondent-company for a sum of Rs. 97,380/-. For quick look relevant facts have been jotted down in the table below: Events Dates Date of accident. 07.02.2012 Date on which the vehicle was brought to the workshop. 10.02.2012 Preparation of estimate of repairs by the workshop. The amount calculated was Rs. 1,20,580/-. 25.02.2012 There is nothing on record to suggest as to whether the owner of the vehicle informed the insurance company about the accident. Date of appointment of surveyor. 06.03.2012 Inspection of vehicle by surveyor. 08.03.2012 Date of submission of report by the surveyor. The amount of claim assessed by the surveyor was Rs. 60,674/-. 18.06.2012 Communication by the petitioners’ workshop to the owner seeking consent for repair of the vehicle. 15.03.2013 02.04.2013 Amount deposited by the owner of the vehicle Rs. 2,500/- 28.05.2013 Filing of complaint by the owner of the vehicle before the District Forum. 19.12.2013 Generation of bill for repair of the vehicle by the petitioners workshop. 14.10.2015 The District Forum accepted the complaint and directed that the vehicle to be treated as total loss and consequent payment of amount to the owner of the vehicle. 13.02.2016 The insurance Company accepted the order passed by the District Forum and complied with the same. 9. 19.12.2013 Generation of bill for repair of the vehicle by the petitioners workshop. 14.10.2015 The District Forum accepted the complaint and directed that the vehicle to be treated as total loss and consequent payment of amount to the owner of the vehicle. 13.02.2016 The insurance Company accepted the order passed by the District Forum and complied with the same. 9. From the facts, which have been mentioned in chronological order date wise in the aforesaid table clearly establish that each one of the three parties, namely owner of the vehicle, the workshop and the Insurance Company were at default in not taking up the matter seriously. There was inordinate delay on the part of all of them. 10. The State Commission rejected the appeal filed by the petitioners, while upholding the order passed by the District Forum opining that the estimate prepared by the surveyor appointed by the Insurance Company was Rs. 60,674/- and the Insurance Company having consented to pay another Rs. 25,000/-, the amount would come out to Rs. 85,674/-, which was more than 75% of the insured value, hence, the vehicle was to be declared total loss. The findings are erroneous as there is not consent as such by the Insurance Company to pay Rs. 25,000/- over and above the estimate prepared by the surveyor. 11. There is huge delay even on the part of the petitioners to prepare the estimates to repair the vehicle or to correspond with the owner of the vehicle or the Insurance Company. Though it was sought to be claimed that the vehicle was repaired in the year 2013 only, the bill thereof was raised only on 14.10.2015, that too when the matter was pending before the District Forum. It was nearly two years after the filing of the compliant. None of the parties apparently took effective steps to make efforts to sort out the issue. There is nothing referred to from the record as to whether after the vehicle was repaired, as is claimed by the petitioners, any intimation thereof was sent to the owner of the vehicle. 12. The Insurance Company accepted the order passed by the District Forum and did not challenge it any further. It was challenged only by the workshop. There is nothing referred to from the record as to whether after the vehicle was repaired, as is claimed by the petitioners, any intimation thereof was sent to the owner of the vehicle. 12. The Insurance Company accepted the order passed by the District Forum and did not challenge it any further. It was challenged only by the workshop. While dismissing the first appeal, however, the State Commission had observed that dismissal of the appeal will not preclude the petitioners to seek appropriate relief from the Insurance Company. 13. There is nothing pointed out from the record as to whether any other proceedings were initiated by the petitioners against the respondents or the respondents against the petitioners with reference to the dispute in question. 14. Learned counsel for the owner of the vehicle had submitted that Insurance Company having paid the amount to him as per the directions of the District Forum, he had transferred the ownership thereof in the name of the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company had claimed that on payment of claim by declaring the vehicle as total loss the Company is entitled to the salvage. The vehicle has been retained by the workshop after the repairs, as the owner of the vehicle had failed to pay the amount of repairs. Important aspect is that the insured value of vehicle was Rs. 97,380/- and after the accident when the estimate was prepared by the petitioners, the cost of repairs was assessed at Rs. 1,20,580/- and the final bill raised for repairs was Rs. 1,23,111/-. 15. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, as has been discussed above, in our opinion, all the three parties being at default, the issue can be resolved by directing the Insurance Company to transfer the ownership of the vehicle in the name of the petitioners instead of it claiming the salvage after payment of the claim by declaring the vehicle as total loss in terms of the order passed by the District Forum. On transfer of the ownership of the vehicle, in whatever conditions the same is, the petitioners shall be at liberty to make use of that or dispose of the same. Beyond that they cannot be held entitled any other amount. Relief was required to be moulded keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case. 16. On transfer of the ownership of the vehicle, in whatever conditions the same is, the petitioners shall be at liberty to make use of that or dispose of the same. Beyond that they cannot be held entitled any other amount. Relief was required to be moulded keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case. 16. With the aforesaid modification in the order passed by the State Commission, the present petition is disposed of.