This revision petition challenges the order dated 11.12.2008 of the Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (in short, he State Commission. By this order, the State Commission disposed of the cross appeals filed by the petitioner (appellant/complainant) as well as the respondent and, modifying the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jind (in short, he District Forum, directed the respondent (insurance company) to pay to the petitioner Rs.20,399/- (being the amount assessed as payable claim by the surveyor who had examined the insurance claim of the complainant in respect of his damaged mini bus) along with interest @ 12% per annum from 16.08.1993 till actual payment. 2. The petitioner was the complainant before the District Forum with the allegation of deficiency in service against the respondent, in that the respondent had declined its claim for reimbursement of cost of repairs to his insured mini bus which had met with an accident on 20.05.1993 during the currency of the insurance policy (29.03.1993 to 28.03.1994). The respondent repudiated the claim on that the person driving the vehicle at the time of the accident did not possess a valid and effective driving licence. Before the District Forum the respondent also pleaded that according to the surveyor appointed for assessing the loss, the complainant was entitled only to Rs.20,390/-. 3. The District Forum considered the evidence and documents brought on record by the parties and concluded that the petitioner/complainant had incurred an expenditure of Rs.1,07,333/- on repairing the bus after the accident and was, as such, entitled to that amount. The District Forum, therefore, directed the respondent/opposite party - OP to pay the sum of Rs.1,07,000/- to the complainant along with interest @ 12% per annum from 16.08.1993 till realisation and Rs.1000/- towards cost. This order, challenged by both the parties in appeal, led to the State Commission order which is under challenge in this revision petition. 4. I have heard Dr. Sushil Balwada on behalf of the petitioner/ complainant and Mr. Ranjan K. Pandey on behalf of the respondent and considered the evidence and documents on record. 5. The revision petition has been filed after a long delay of 102 days. The ground cited by the petitioner in his application for condonation of this delay is only the petitioner counsel fell ill after accepting the brief. No details whatsoever, leave alone any document in support of this statement, have been given, which makes the ground tenuous and hence unacceptable. The petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. 6. Still, the petition has been considered on merits. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the State Commission erred in awarding the insurance claim in accordance with the amount assessed by the surveyor and ignoring the actual cost that the petitioner incurred on getting the damaged mini bus repaired through its authorised dealer. In support of his contention that a surveyor report was neither binding in all circumstances nor sacrosanct, learned counsel has sought to rely on the Apex Courtdecision in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited v Pradeep Kumar [(2009) 7 Supreme Court Cases 787]. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the District Forum erroneously accepted the claim that the complainants (as there were 2 in the complaint) had actually spent Rs.1,07,876.80 on account of various charges, including repairs and replacement cost of the bus in question and proceeded to award Rs.1,07,000/- by way of insurance claim. In doing so, the District Forum completely ignored the loss assessed by the surveyor instead of examining the assessment on objective criteria. The State Commission, on the other hand, noticed that in rejecting the surveyor assessment of loss,, the District Forum held that this was only for repairs to the existing body of the bus whereas the complainants had got the body of the bus completely replaced. Rightly observing that the surveyor report was an important document as per the settled law, the State Commission held that the report could not be brushed aside unless there was specific reason to do so or some mala fide on the part of the surveyor was established. The State Commission further observed that the District Forum had given no reasons why it did not accept the report of the surveyor nor did it specify where the surveyor had gone wrong in his assessment of the loss due to accident that damaged the vehicle. 8. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties. Dr. Balwada has sought to rely on the observation of the Apex Court in paragraph 22 of the Court judgment in the above-mentioned case. The paragraph is reproduced below: 2. In other words although the assessment of loss by the approved surveyor is a prerequisite for payment or settlement of claim of twenty thousand rupees or more by insurer, but surveyor report is not the last and final word. It is not the sacrosanct that it cannot be departed from; it is not conclusive. The approved surveyor report may be the basis or foundation for settlement of a claim by the insurer in respect of the loss suffered by the insured but surely such report is neither binding upon the insurer nor insured 9. However, careful perusal of the said judgment would show that the facts in the case before the Apex Court are significantly different. In that case, the truck, which was not even two years old, met with an accident in the hilly area of District Tehri and fell down into a khud 300 feet below the road. As a result of the accident, the driver of the truck died. The loss was first assessed by a surveyor against whom the complainant made some complaint. Thereafter, the insurance company appointed another surveyor who assessed the loss at Rs.59,304/- as against the claim of Rs.1,58,409/- by the insured/complainant. Discussing the facts further, the Apex Court observed that the vehicle had suffered extensive damage because of the accident and also noticed that in their reports the surveyors had recorded their satisfaction that the damages to the vehicle were consistent with the type of accident. The Court further noticed that the original cost estimate for repairs referred to in the second surveyor summary assessment was for a sum of Rs.1,66,580/- and that original estimate had been suppressed by the insurance company before the Consumer Fora. It was in these circumstances that the Apex Court made the observations quoted above and confirmed the concurrent findings of the District Forum, State Commission and this Commission allowing the claim on the basis of the actual costs in support of which the insured/complainant had submitted bills and vouchers before the second and the third surveyors. 10. The ratio of this judgment of the Apex Court cannot be applied to this case for the facts here are entirely different. The controversy is in fact regarding the assessment of the loss based on repairs to the existing body of the bus vis a vis complete replacement of the body taking advantage of the damage caused by the accident. The principle of indemnity underlying an insurance policy does not permit complete renewal of the bus body when appropriate repairs would reinstate the insured bus to its pre-accident status. Insofar as the surveyor assessment was based on such repairs, it cannot be thrown overboard merely on the ground that the insured complainant chose instead to get the bus body completely replaced. 11. In view of the foregoing discussion I do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order of the State Commission which does not suffer from any jurisdictional error, legal infirmity or material irregularity. 12. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.