PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER As these revision petitions arise out of common order of learned State Commission involving same question of law, we are deciding all these revision petitions by common order. 2. These revision petitions have been filed by the petitioner/complainant against the order dated 1.4.2008 passed by the Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (in short, he State Commission in Appeal Nos. 113, 114 & 220 of 2008 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation by which, while allowing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was set aside. 3. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner insured 8500 employees with OP/respondent for Rs.3,00,000/- each for a period of one year i.e. from 22.12.1995 to 21.12.1996. During the subsistence of insurance policy, 17 employees of the complainant/Corporation died and OP made payment in respect of the death cases, but has not made payment in respect of death claims of remaining employees. In separate complaints it was alleged that Kitab Singh died on 4.8.1996, Gajender Singh died on 16.5.1996 and Jagat Ram-I died on 21.6.1996. Complainant lodged complaint in respect of death of aforesaid employees and OP asked complainant to submit original documents of post-mortem report and FIR. Complainant informed OP that original documents are lying with the Police authorities and OP assured that claims would be settled, but so far claims have not been settled. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP/respondent resisted complaint and submitted that complaint was not maintainable due to acts, deeds and conduct of the complainant. District forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint and further submitted that deceased was not covered under the policy and prayed for dismissal of complaint Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed all the complaints and directed OP to pay Rs.3,00,000/- along with 9% p.a. interest and Rs.3,000/- as cost in each case. Appeals filed by the OP were allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, these revision petitions have been filed. 4. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that merely by non-inclusion of names of deceased persons by inadvertence in the list of employees, respondent had no right to repudiate the claim and learned District Forum rightly allowed the complaint, but learned State Commission has committed error in allowing appeal; hence, revision petitions be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that as there was no coverage of aforesaid three employees, learned State Commission has not committed any error in dismissing complaint; hence, revision petitions be dismissed. 6. It is not disputed that deceased persons were employees of the petitioner. It is also not disputed that names of aforesaid three employees in whose respect complaints have been filed were not included in the list of employees given by petitioner to the respondent for whose benefit insurance coverage has been taken by the petitioner from respondent. As names of deceased employees were not included in the list of employees covered under insurance policy, petitioner was not entitled to get claim in respect of aforesaid three deceased employees and learned State Commission has not committed any error in allowing appeal and dismissing complaint. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that by inadvertence, names of aforesaid three employees were not included in the list, but the same were included subsequently, when the mistake was detected, vide letter dated 20.02.1997; hence, petitioner is entitled to get compensation. This argument is devoid of force because at the time of accident, names of aforesaid three employees were not forming part of 8500 employees who were given insurance coverage under the policy. Admittedly, death of aforesaid three employees occurred before 20.02.1997 and in such circumstances, by correction in the list after death of aforesaid employees, petitioner does not get any benefit. 8. In the light of aforesaid discussion, we do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and revision petitions are liable to be dismissed. 9. Consequently, revision petitions filed by the petitioner are dismissed with no order as to costs.