Mr. B.K. Taimni, Member—Petitioner was the complainant before the District Forum, where he had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent Insurance Company.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had insured his earth moving machinery (excavator) with the respondent Insurance Company, which got damaged on account of over-turning, repair cost of which as per the complainant was Rs. 3,97,350.56 ps. On a claim being preferred with the respondent, it was repudiated on the ground that any loss caused by ‘overturning’ was not within the terms of the policy. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent, a complaint was filed before the District Forum, who after hearing the parties allowed the complaint in part and directed the respondent to pay Rs. 91,000/- along with interest @ 12% p.a. Not satisfied with the relief, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission, who after hearing the parties enhanced the amount of compensation to Rs. 1,10,593.35 ps. i.e., the amount of the loss assessed by the Surveyor along with interest @ 12% p.a. Still not satisfied, this revision petition has been filed before us.

3. We heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the material on record. There is no disputing the fact that as rightly held by both the lower Forums there was no exclusion clause applicable in this case, hence the loss was covered by the terms of the policy. We have very carefully gone through the claim of Rs. 3,97,350/- as also detailed report on each and every item requiring replacement/change, etc. based on which the Surveyor has assessed the loss at Rs. 1,10,593.35 ps., details of which are given from page 1 to 3 of scrutiny report dated 2nd Deccember, 1997. Some of the items, mentioned as 1, 6, 8, 9 and 11 at page 1, have rightly been rejected by the Surveyor. It was argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Surveyor has not taken into consideration the cost of the crank shaft. We are afraid that is not so as this has been taken into consideration by the Surveyor at page No. 2 of the scrutiny report. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also argued that there were other repairs which have not been gone into by the Surveyor but he failed to show us these items. In fact at page 3 of the scrutiny report, the Surveyor had observed as follows:

“Further insured has also claimed replacement of carrier roller 1 No. of value Rs. 16,017/- as well as 1 No. of track roller of Rs. 20,619.30 and repair of idler and final drive eassy of Rs. 91,900/-. In our opinion these damages are of wear and tear and further these items were also not available for our inspection. Hence all the values mentioned above have not been considered in our scrutiny report.”

4. It cannot be anyone’s case that without showing the concerned items to the Surveyor, claimed amount should be admitted just because the complainant has claimed certain amount. In view of the above, we are satisfied that the observation of the Surveyor in this regard has to be upheld.

Since the final amount of loss as assessed by the Surveyor has been granted by the State Commission, we find no infirmity in its order to call for our interference in revisional jurisdiction.

The revision petition is devoid of merit, hence dismissed.

No order as to costs.

R.P. dismissed.