1.       This revision is directed against the order of the Chhattishgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur (in short, “the State Commission”) dated 10.6.2015 whereby the State Commission allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent/insurance company against the order of the District Forum.

2.       Briefly stated, facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that petitioner being registered owner of vehicle No.C.G.09/E-1111 insured the vehicle with the respondent/opposite party. The insurance policy was valid for the period 8.6.2012 to 7.6.2013 with IDV ₹ 5,40,000/-. The said vehicle met with an accident on 26.8.2012 and sustained damage. It may be noted that at the relevant time the vehicle was carrying passengers more than the permissible capacity. The matter was reported to the police as also the insurance company. The insurance company appointed a surveyor who assessed the value of the vehicle to the tune of ₹ 2,28,440/-. The insurance company taking note of the fact that at the time of accident the vehicle was overloaded carrying passengers more than the sanctioned capacity allowed the claim of the respondent on non-standard basis and paid a sum of Rs.1,67,330/- to the petitioner/complainant being 75% of the assessed claim, after deducting ₹ 4, 000/- as salvage amount. According to the complainant he spent ₹3,34,091/- for repair of the vehicle from authorized dealer and therefore the petitioner ought to have paid insurance claim to the extent of 75% of the amount of repairs paid to the authorized dealer. Thus, the complainant raised a consumer dispute. The respondent/opposite party on being served with the notice of the complaint filed the written statement justifying the payment of ₹1,67,330/- against the insurance claim and submitted that it has not committed any deficiency in service.

3.       The District Forum on consideration of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence allowed the complaint and came to the conclusion that the insurance company ought to have paid 75% of the amount paid by the complainant to the authorized dealer. The District Forum thus directed the respondent/opposite party to pay to the petitioner a further sum of ₹ 83,737/-.

4.       Being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum respondent/opposite party preferred an appeal. The State Commission, Chhattishgarh after hearing the parties allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order and dismissed the complaint. On perusal of record we find that the State Commission relied upon the assessment of damage done by the surveyor Mr. Vinod Kumar Jain and concluded that the opposite party had rightly paid a sum of ₹ 1,66,831/- to the appellant, the amount being 75% of the actual damage assessed minus salvage value.

5.       Being aggrieved of the order of the State Commission, the petitioner/complainant has filed the revision petition.

6.       Mohd. Anis-Ur-Rehman, Advocate for the petitioner has contended that the order of the State Commission is not sustainable for the reason that the State Commission totally ignored the fact that the petitioner has got the car repaired from the authorized service station and paid sum of ₹3,34,091/- for the repairs. The State Commission ought to have taken note of the fact that 75% of the said amount paid for the repair was more than ₹1,66,831/- paid as insurance claim and as such the District Forum was justified in awarding further sum of ₹1,83,737/- being the difference.

7.       We do not find merit in the above contention.  No doubt, the petitioner has placed on record invoice / bill for repair issued by the authorized service station.  The said invoice / bill, however, is of no avail to the petitioner in absence of cogent evidence to show that the bill / invoice relates only to the repair in relation to the damage caused to the vehicle in the accident and not in relation to any other unrelated defects in the subject vehicle.  The respondent opposite party has placed on record the report of the Surveyor.  On perusal of the surveyor report, we find that it is based upon comprehensive inspection of the subject vehicle and the assessment of the cost for repairs.  Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any infirmity in the surveyor report.  Thus, we do not find any fault with the order of the State Commission based upon the survey report prepared by an independent surveyor.

8.       In view of the discussion above, we do not find any material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order which may call for interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. Revision petition is accordingly dismissed.