Respondents were the complainants before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-III, New Delhi (District Forum for short). They had obtained household policy from the petitioner/Insurance Company valid from 21st of July, 2004 to 20th of July, 2005, which covered insurance for jewellery valued at Rs.1,96,336/-. On 18th of Setpember, 2004, they wanted to have a darshan of Sai Baba and went to the Sai Baba Temple at Najafgarh, New Delhi. At that time, while the wife was wearing a set of gold ornament and eight bangles, husband was wearing one chain with pendant, two rings and kada. On reaching near the temple, they thought it prudent to take off the jewellery and put them in a pouch to be kept in the handbag and lock it inside the car. The handbag thereafter was kept in the glove box of the car and the car was locked. However, when they returned from the temple after 15-20 minutes, they found that the front gate on the left side of the car was opened and the handbag containing the jewellery pouch had been missing. They reported this incident on the same day before the police station, who entered the DD but the FIR was registered on the 26th of September, 2004. The petitioner-Insurance Company had been informed about the theft of the above items along with the claim on the 20th of September, 2004, who appointed a surveyor. However, when the claim was not settled, the respondents after issuance of a legal notice filed a complaint before the District Forum on the 20th of May, 2005. During the pendency of the complaint before the District Forum, the petitioner-Insurance Company repudiated the claim holding that the jewellery was taken off and kept in a pouch in full public view and the same was kept in the dash board of the car that was parked in unmanned and unattended parking, which amounted to the failure on the part of the insured to take ‘reasonable care’ to safeguard the insured jewellery. They also resisted the complaint and filed their written statement before the District Forum. On a perusal and appreciation of the evidence produced before it, the District Forum dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved thereupon, the respondent/complainants filed an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (State Commission for short), who vide the order impugned set aside the dismissal order of the District Forum and directed the petitioner/opposite party/Insurance Company to pay the assessed amount of Rs.1,29,494/- and further awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs.25,000/- for mental agony and harassment as also Rs.5000/- as cost of litigation. Aggrieved with the reversal of the order in its favour, the opposite party/Insurance Company has filed this revision petition. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the available records of the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner/Insurance Company has contended that in the normal circumstances of a theft it was expected of the victim to immediately call the Police Control Room van (PCR) and also register an FIR with the police. He contends that the respondent/complainants did not call the PCR and further they lodged the report/complaint with the police on the next day i.e. on the 19th of September, 2004. This is, however, not borne out from the records. From the records, we find that the respondent/complainants have lodged a report with the police on the 18th of September, 2004 itself, the receipt of which bears a stamp and acknowledgment of the Najafgarh Police Station, New Delhi. Besides, the SHO, Najafgarh Police Station, New Delhi vide his note dated 26th of March, 2009 has clearly stated that the complaint was received on 18th of September, 2004 itself and bears a diary number of the police station. Insofar as the other grounds raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner/Insurance Company, such as the respondent/ complainants having obtained a policy for the first time and having enhanced the value of the insurance within a short period and further that nobody would wear jewellery while going to temple etc., are concerned, we find that the same have been fully considered by the State Commission, who has given the detailed reasons for not accepting the same and no new point has been raised by the learned counsel for our consideration at the stage of revision. We, however, notice that compensation of Rs.25,000/- and in addition cost of Rs.5000/- has been awarded by the State Commission for the mental agony and harassment. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we do not consider that any compensation and/or cost as such was warranted and to that extent we modify the order of the State Commission and direct the petitioner/Insurance Company to pay the amount of Rs.1,29,494/- as assed by their own surveyor to the respondent/complainants within a period of four weeks. The revision petition, thus, is disposed of in above terms with no order as to cost.