PER JUSTICE J.M. MALIK 1. Counsel for the petitioner heard. The State Commission placed reliance on the Apex Court authority reported in the case of ““Sri Venkateswara Syndicate Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr., II(2010) CPJ 1 (SC)” and passed the following order thereafter. The same is reproduced as under: “17. Therefore, even as per this judgment that if there are reasons to the report of the surveyor can be disbelieved for good and adequate reasons. 18. So far as the present case is concerned, the surveyor has given details of the damaged parts of the vehicle which are 15 in number. The total estimated value was Rs. 4,64,202/-. However, the surveyor has only assessed the amount against 6 + 3 parts and no reasons have been given for disallowing the remaining claim or for reducing the amount under the head counted. Therefore, the report of the surveyor is totally without reasons and is undependable. The respondents believed that the vehicle can be got repaired for an amount of Rs. 51,237.31. The respondent insurance company may get the vehicle repaired and pay the repair amount directly to the workshop people. The vehicle may be got made in absolute working condition and its delivery be made to the appellant. 19. In view of the discussions held above, the appeal is partly accepted, impugned judgment dated 28.05.2009 is set aside and the respondents are directed to get the vehicle repaired in entirely and to make it in working condition and to get the said vehicle from the workshop authorities to the appellant in working condition.” 2. We have heard the counsel for the petitioner. She submits that their liability is only to reimburse the repairs and they are ready to pay Rs. 51,237.31. We do not agree with her. 3. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that they are ready to pay Rs. 3,60,947/-. She further explains that as per the complainant the compensation demanded by the complainant is Rs.3,69,858/- and applying policy clause, it comes to Rs. 3,60,947/-. This argument is straw man intended to divert us from the real issue. 4. We see no flaw in the order passed by the State Commission. The State Commission has nowhere missed the wood for the trees. We add our voice to theirs and feel no hesitation in dismissing the revision petition. The real facts will also come to the fore. The position of the surveyor will also be known by this order. The search for truth is the foundation of Judiciary. The reality must dominate the Commission. 5. It is surprising to note that the State Commission passed the order on 30.07.2012. Instead of obeying the order of the State Commission, the petitioner has wasted seven months by filing this revision petition. The car owner is deprived of the car use for about 6 months. She submits that the petitioner received the order on 27th or 28th September 2012. It further shows negligence on the part of the petitioner when the arguments before the State Commission were heard and the matter stood concluded, it should have been very vigilant and should have come to know about this case within 15 days of passing of Judgment. Consequently, we further award costs/compensation in the sum of Rs. 50,000/-, which will be paid to the respondent/complainant within 15 days otherwise it will carry interest @10%. Further the petitioner is directed to repair the car within 15 days, failing which, it would be liable to pay costs of Rs. 10,000/- per month till the car is repaired. 6. The matter stands disposed of. | 
