Complainant/petitioner got her Maruti car insured from respondent for a sum of Rs.60,000/-. The said car was stolen in the intervening night of 5/6.6.2006. Police ultimately traced the vehicle on 10.6.2003 but most of its parts were found either missing or damaged. Complainant got the cost of repair etc. assessed from Maruti Company Authorized Service & Spares Dealers at Industrial Town Mehatpur Una. As per its estimate costs of spares and repairs of vehicle working out to about Rs.38,500/-, whereas the Surveyors appointed by the respondent assessed the damage in the sum of Rs.10,164/- for repairs of the vehicle. Petitioner instead of getting the vehicle repaired, sold the same for a sum of Rs.15,000/- to one Shri Tara Singh. Since no amount was paid, petitioner filed a complaint before the District Forum seeking compensation of Rs.38,500/-. District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay the sum of Rs.38,509/- to the petitioner alongwith interest @ 9% w.e.f. 29th September, 2004 till realization. Rs.2,000/- was awarded as cost. State Commission has reversed the order of the District Forum by observing that the contract of insurance is of indemnity. Since the petitioner did not spend the amount to get the car repaired, she was not entitled to be indemnified of the expenditure which was not incurred by her. We agree with the view taken by the State Commission. Contract of insurance is a contract of indemnity. The insurer is entitled to be indemnified of expenditure, which he incurs. Since in the present case the petitioner did not incur any expenditure or get the car repaired, she was not entitled to be indemnified. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the State Commission. Revision petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.