Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent on admission. The factual matrix are that M/s. Josan Rice Mills which had obtained open marine policy from petitioner Insurance Company dispatched consignment of 600 bags of rice Sella through a carrier, namely, M/s. Ashoka Transport Co. from Jalalabad to Bongaigaon for delivery to the respondent. However, truck in question laden with rice met with an accident on national high way on 6.6.2001 and consignment suffered damages. Insurance Company was informed on 8.6.2001. It seems that while claim was being processed by Insurance Company, complainant took recourse to -2- consumer grievances redressal agency filing a complaint with the District Forum. The claim was resisted by Insurance Company disowning their liability to make good losses of the consignment. The District Forum however on consideration of pleadings of the parties relegated matter to the civil Court on assumption that since the matter involved complicated question of facts that could not be adjudicated in summary proceedings. The State Commission on appeal while accepting claim, directed Insurance Company to pay Rs.2,96,261/- to the respondent. It is against those findings of the State Commission that the Insurance Company is in revision. As reported by Registry, the revision petition has been filed by petitioner-Company with delay of 39 days for which an application for condonation of delay has been filed and for the reasons assigned therein the delay is hereby condoned. Contentions are raised on behalf of the petitioner-Insurance Company that even though the truck loaded with consignment met with an accident on 6.6.2001 it was not before lapse of two days that the Insurance Company was informed of the incident and for belated submission of information to -3- the Insurance Company, there was no occasion for Insurance Company to make detailed investigation about genuineness of claim of the respondent. Yet another contention raised was that though contention raised on behalf of the Insurance Company was overruled by State Commission, it lost notice of the fact that neither driver of the vehicle was examined nor any affidavit was filed on his behalf and that apart if we go by finding of the Investigator, it had restricted loss to 43-44 rice bags only. It is urged that the State Commission having lost notice of finding of the Investigator directed the Insurance Company to pay insured value of consignment which are against weight of mass of evidence on record. Without dilating the issue further I may confine to the fact that following submission of information about truck laden with consignment having met with an accident, a Surveyor was appointed by Insurance Company who had visited site when consignment was being unloaded from carrier for storage in godown and it is in the finding of the Surveyor that the rice bags as a result of the accident had come in contact with diesel oil which flowed from tank and the consignment had contaminated also due to rain water getting it damaged. Surveyor in his conclusive finding assessed loss -4- for Rs.3,06,261/-. As has been noticed other investigator appointed by Insurance Company had suspected genuineness of the claim and consequential loss that followed due to accident. The State Commission however had taken notice of the fact that it was not before lapse of more than 7 months that said Investigator visited site on different dates and had recorded statement of some witnesses and it was not unlikely that the statement which witnesses rendered before the investigator may not depict true picture of the incident which happed before 7 or 8 months earlier due to memory of human being not infallible. The State Commission having taken notice of these features of the case, in my view, rightly put reliance on finding of the Surveyor to the exclusion of finding of Investigator who had not inspected site before lapse of 7 or 8 months of the incident and saddled Insurance Company to pay Rs.2,96,261/- which was based on value of the goods, alongwith interest. Having considered submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also the finding recorded by the State Commission, I appreciate the conclusion and also the reasoning assigned by State Commission -5- which in my considered view did not warranted interference while exercising revisional jurisdiction. Revision petition, in circumstances, being devoid of merit is dismissed with no order as to costs.