Order dated 05.12.2011, passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short he State Commission in appeal no. 1015/2011, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company, opposite party before the District Forum, has approached this Commission with this petition purportedly filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The appeal before the State Commission was filed by the Insurance Company, against the order dated 31.05.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad in complaint no. 41 of 2009, by which order the said District Forum had partly allowed the complaint of the complainant and directed the Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.13,00,000/- towards damage of the JCB machine alongwith interest @9% p.a from the date of complaint till the date of payment besides a sum of Rs.2,200/- as litigation expenses. The insurance company filed appeal before the State Commission but without any success. Hence this petition. 2. We have heard the counsel for the parties and have considered their respective submissions. Counsel for the petitioner would assail the impugned order primarily on the ground that the award of Rs.13 lakh by the District Forum is not justified on the face of the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence and material brought on record. In particular, he has invited our attention to the report dated 17.09.2009 of Rajiv Singla, Surveyor & Loss Assessor, by which the said surveyor has assessed the loss as under:- SUMMARY OF ASSESSMENT Estimate (Amt. in Rs.) Assessed (Amt. in Rs.) Total Labour Charges 0.00 174158.00 Total Cost of Parats 0.00 969641.66 Total 0.00 1143799.66 Less Salvage Value 62000.00 Total 1091799.66 Less Compulsory Excess 6500.00 Total 1085299.66 3. Mr. Nandwani, counsel for the petitioner submits that even if there ground of repudiation was held untenable, the District Forum and State Commission ought not to have granted a compensation exceeding to above assessment, i.e., Rs.10,85,299.66ps. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent / complainant submits that the award made by the District Forum and affirmed by the State Commission is fully justified. 4. Having considered the matter we are of the view that even admitted that the Insurance Company had repudiated the claim on an untenable ground, the Fora below ought not to have award any compensation exceeding to Rs.10,85,299.66ps. However, since, even that claim was not settled and amount was not paid by the Insurance Company to the respondent / complainant within a reasonable period, say, within three or four months from the date of peril, we are of the view that the petitioner insurance company should also compensate the respondent / complainant by paying interest @9% p.a. on the above-amount with effect from 1.1.2009 till the date of realization. The order of the District Forum stands modified in above terms. Mr. Nandwani counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of this Commission order, petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs.11,50,000/- before the District Forum and the said amount has been withdrawn by the respondent / complainant. We, therefore, direct that the petitioner insurance company shall pay the balance amount to the respondent / complainant within a period of six weeks from today failing which the rate of interest on the balance payable amount shall stand enhanced to 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the revision petition. The revision petition stands disposed off in above terms.