PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/complainant against the order dated 31.5.2011 passed by the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (in short, he State Commission in Appeal No. 653/2009 The Regional Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. K.P. Bushara by which, while allowing appeal partly, order of District Forum allowing complaint was modified. 2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner is owner of a petrol bunk which was insured by OP/respondent for a sum of Rs.32,00,000/- for a period of one year from 2.5.2007 to 1.5.2008. In the early morning of 19.6.2007, the retaining wall of the petrol bunk collapsed. Intimation was immediately given to OP, but no one turned up. Independent surveyor Mr. Babu assessed loss of Rs.9,00,000/- after inspection of site. OP was not disbursing the claim amount. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP/respondent contested complaint. OP admitted policy and incident of collapse of retaining wall. It was further submitted that on the next date of incident, independent surveyor inspected the site and submitted report on 26.7.2007. It was further submitted that claim submitted by the complainant was incomplete and loss to the retaining wall was not covered under the policy; hence, claim was repudiated. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to pay Rs.7,00,000/-. OP filed appeal before learned State Commission and learned State Commission vide impugned order while allowing appeal partly, modified order of District Forum and awarded Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation instead of Rs.7,00,000/- and further awarded cost of Rs.5,000/- against which, this revision petition has been filed. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that learned District Forum rightly allowed compensation of Rs.7,00,000/-, but learned State Commission has committed error in restricting it only to the extent of Rs.1,50,000/- without any basis; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that firstly, retaining wall was not covered under the policy and secondly, amount awarded for retaining wall is proper; hence, revision petition be dismissed. 5. First of all, it is to be seen whether; insurance policy covers retaining wall. Description of property covered under the Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy runs as under: Sr. No. Block Description 1. n Petrol/Diesel Bunk Building with Plinth and Foundation Rs.7,00,000/-, Stocks of Petroleum Products Rs. 24,50,000/-, Furnitures, Fixtures and Fittings Rs.50,000/- 6. Perusal of policy clearly reveals that it does not cover retention wall, though, learned District Forum has opined that retaining wall is covered under the insurance policy. Learned State Commission held coverage of retaining wall on the basis of previous year policy in which retention wall was covered under the policy. Complaint has to be decided in pursuance to insurance policy for the period 2.5.2007 to 1.5.2008. It may be by omission that retaining wall was not covered under the insurance policy, but when retaining wall coverage is not found under the policy; petitioner was not entitled to get any compensation for damage to retention wall. Surveyor appointed by OP clearly mentioned in his surveyor report that damage to retaining wall was not covered under the policy. Learned Counsel for the petitioner could not place any document on record to show that retaining wall was also covered under the policy. In such circumstances, we are of the view that retaining wall was not covered under the policy. 7. As far as quantum of damage to the retaining wall is concerned, learned District Forum placed reliance on report of assessor appointed by complainant and assessed loss to the tune of Rs.9,00,000/-, but confined it to Rs.7,00,000/- as insurance coverage was only to the extent of Rs.7,00,000/-. Learned State Commission vide impugned order observed that no reliance can be placed on the estimate by building supervisor and further observed that cost of reconstruction of wall alone cannot be Rs.9,00,000/-, whereas entire building and other constructions have been covered for Rs.7,00,000/- only. Learned State Commission placed reliance on surveyor report appointed by the respondent. 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that no reliance can be placed on surveyor report because surveyor appointed by OP has not assessed the loss as per surveyor report. Surveyor has clearly mentioned in his report that he has not assessed loss as claim documents were not submitted and damaged retaining wall was not covered under the policy, but on inspection he estimated loss to the retaining wall around Rs.1.5 lakhs subject to improvement, etc. No doubt, surveyor has not assessed loss to the retaining wall, but when Petrol/Diesel Bunk Building with Plinth and Foundation were insured for Rs.7,00,000/-, the cost of retaining wall, by no stretch of imagination, can be assessed for Rs.9,00,000/- as opined by complainant assessor. It is also not clear what was the height of retaining wall and what was its length and width and in such circumstances, amount of loss estimated by learned State Commission cannot be said to be on lower side. We agree that leaned State Commission has not committed any error in modifying order of District Forum and substituting compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- by Rs.1,50,000/- for the retaining wall. 8. Though, retaining wall was not covered under the insurance policy as held by us, but as no revision petition has been filed by the respondent challenging impugned order, we cannot set aside impugned order and dismiss the complaint. 9. We do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order assessing damage to the extent of Rs.1,50, 000/-to the retaining wall and revision petition is liable to be dismissed. 10. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs.