Petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum.

          Complainant/respondent had got his motorcycle insured from the petitioner.  The said motorcycle was stolen.  FIR was lodged.  Respondent lodged the claim with the petitioner insurance company,

-2-

which was repudiated aggrieved against which the respondent filed the complaint before the District Forum.

          Petitioner was proceeded ex parte as he did not appear before the District Forum inspite of service.

          As the petitioner did not contest the averments made in the complaint, District Forum partly allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay Rs.31,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum w.e.f. 22.11.2003 till realization and Rs.2,000/- by way of compensation and Rs.1,000/- as costs.

          Petitioner being aggrieved filed the appeal before the State Commission alleging therein that there was a delay of six months in lodging the FIR and intimating the petitioner about the loss of the vehicle.  The State Commission dismissed the appeal.

          Petitioner being aggrieved has filed the present Revision Petition.

          Respondent is not present despite service.  Ordered to be proceeded ex-parte.

-3-

          Counsel for the petitioner contends that there was a delay of six months in lodging the FIR as well as the claim with the petitioner insurance company.  There is no evidence on record to show as to what was the delay in lodging the FIR or the claim with the petitioner insurance company.  In the absence of any such evidence, the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted.  No merits.  Dismissed.