This revision petition is directed against the order of the State Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh dated 26.04.2012 whereby the State Commission reversed the order of the District Forum and dismissed the claim of the petitioner. 2. Briefly put facts relevant for the disposal of this revision petition are that the complainant is a society. It obtained a cash insurance policy of Rs.3 lakhs from the OP valid from 01.04.2006 to 31.03.2007 in respect of any loss during transit of cash from society to bank. It is the claim of the petitioner that on 08.05.2006, Sh.Badan Singh, Secretary of the Society left the society to deposit cash of Rs.1,73,310/- with the bank. However, the bag containing cash was lost on the way regarding which a Daily Diary Report No.14 was lodged at the concerned police station on 10.05.2006. The OP was also informed on 22.05.2006. The insurance claim of the petitioner was repudiated by the OP on the ground that the petitioner had already exhausted the insurance cover before the date of alleged loss. Claiming this to be deficiency in service, the petitioner filed a consumer complaint with the District Forum, Ropar. 3. The OP in its written response alleged that during the period from 17.04.2006 to 05.05.2006, the complainant society on various occasions took the cash amounting to Rs.20,65,417/- to the bank, therefore they had already exhausted the insurance cover of Rs.3 lacs before the date of incident. It was also claimed by the OP that as per the investigation carried by the surveyor, the story given by the secretary of the society regarding loss was not correct and the petitioner had filed false claim for compensation. 4. The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the OP to pay to the petitioner a compensation of Rs.1,73,310/- along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date when the claim was repudiated till the date of realization of the amount. Rs.1,000/- were also awarded as costs. 5. Being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum, the OP preferred an appeal before the State Commission which was allowed and the impugned order of the District Forum was set aside with following observations:- he story as to how the bag was lost is also of suspicious nature. Badan Singh admitted that he was going to the bank on a scooter which had dickey in the front side but he did not put the cash in the said dickey which could even be locked. On the other hand, he hung the bag containing the cash below his seat. Even if it was so hung, if the bag had fallen on the way, Badan Singh would have noticed the same which shows that it did not fall on the way as Badan Singh was driving the vehicle with open eyes and had not been sleeping. It shows that no such bag was lost and the facts were different than one projected by Badan Singh in Ex.C4. That is why, the complainant society did not produce the affidavit of Badan Singh or of the persons who claimed to have accompanied him and they were not, at all, subjected to cross-examination 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is not sustainable in law and that the State Commission has exceeded its jurisdiction in deciding the appeal in favour of the OP ignoring the fact that as per the repudiation letter only ground for repudiation was that the petitioner had already exhausted its insurance cover on the date of incident alleged loss claimed by the petitioner society. It is also contended that the ground on which the order of the District Forum set aside was not taken as ground in the memo of appeal. 7. We have considered the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and perused the record. 8. We are not convinced with the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. On perusal of copies of pleadings of the parties, we find that the respondent/OP disputed the correctness of the allegation of the petitioner that the bag containing cash Rs.1,73,310/- was lost during transit from the society to the bank. Since the allegations pertaining to the claim of the petitioner were disputed by the opposite party (respondent), onus of proving the actual loss of bag containing cash was on the petitioner. Merely because the OP has failed to mention in the repudiation letter that the story putforth by the petitioner was found to be doubtful, the complainant cannot succeed unless the actual loss is proved on record. On perusal of record, we find that the story of the petitioner regarding loss of cash during transit is unreliable. According to the petitioner, the bag was lost during transit on 08.05.2006 but the loss of report was reported to the police on 10.05.2006 and intimation was given to the insurance company much later on 22.05.2006. There is no cogent explanation why the petitioner society waited for two days to report the loss to the police and why the intimation of loss was not given immediately to the respondent insurance company. This circumstance makes the claim of the petitioner highly doubtful. Further, as per the petitioner, its Secretary Badan Singh, at the relevant time was carrying the bag hung on a hook at a scooter. It is highly not probable if the bag actually fell down during transit, Badan Singh would not have noticed it. Moreover, perusal of the impugned order would show that the State Commission did not accept the version of the complainant because it failed to produce the affidavit of Badan Singh or the person who accompanied to support the version. Thus, under these circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order of the State Commission, which may call any interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited by the petitioner with the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission.