This revision petition has been filed by the complainant. His grievance against the respondent/opposite party, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Insurance Company’) was that thieves had broken the lock and wind shield glass of his insured car and taken away the stereo system and he had incurred expenditure to the extent of Rs.53,149/- on its repair, which was required to be reimbursed under the terms of the insurance policy. A surveyor had been appointed, who assessed the loss only at Rs.10,718/-. A complaint, therefore, was filed before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Narnaul (‘District Forum’ for short), who vide its order dated 6th of May, 2009 held that the complainant’s claim was exaggerated. The District Forum agreed with the loss as assessed by the surveyor and, therefore, directed the respondent/opposite party/Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.10,718/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of actual payment. It also imposed a cost of Rs.1100/- on the respondent/opposite party/Insurance Company. Not satisfied with the award, the petitioner/complainant filed an appeal before the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (‘State Commission’ for short), who vide the order dated 28th of July, 2009 impugned did not find any justification for enhancement of the award and dismissed the appeal. It is in this background that the petitioner/complainant seeks to challenge the concurrent order of both the fora below in this revision petition. The petitioner/complainant has been heard. He has submitted that the thieves, in the process of removing the stereo system have damaged the car as well, inasmuch as the lock of the car and the wind shield glass has been broken. He had spent a huge amount in the repair of the car. In this context, he has referred to page 20 of the paper-book which is claimed to be a receipt of Rs.32,850/- issued by M/s Rajat Car Accessories, Delhi. He, therefore, pleads that both the fora below have completely ignored the fact that the car having suffered damage had to be repaired at a huge cost. Having considered the argument of the petitioner/complainant and on a perusal of his complaint as also his report lodged with the police, the contention of the petitioner/complainant do not find support there-from. From the complaint of the petitioner himself, it is found that the respondent/opposite party/Insurance Company on being informed about the theft had directed him to get the repair done through their authorized workshop situated at 15-A, Institutional Area, Gurgaon. However, the petitioner/complainant has not been able to explain as to why he did not get the car repaired through their authorized workshop, as directed. The mere receipt from some spare parts dealer will, therefore, not support his case as it is not difficult for any person to obtain a receipt of this nature to make out a case. Both the District Forum as well as the State Commission have relied upon the assessment of loss made by the surveyor. In fact page 18 of the paper-book gives a detailed estimate of loss on various components, including the labour charges and is estimated at Rs.10,730/-. Both the fora below have very rightly relied upon this estimate and have directed the respondent/opposite party/Insurance Company to pay the said amount with 9% interest from the date of filing of the complaint till payment, which is just, fair and equitable in the facts of the case. The revision petition, therefore, being devoid of any merit needs no interference and is dismissed at the stage of admission with no order as to cost.