ORDER
K.S. Gupta, J. (Presiding Member)
1. Petitioner was the complainant, “ruck bearing registration No. RJ 14-P/8687 belonging to the petitioner was insured with respondent/ opposite party-Insurance Company for the period from 2.12.1998 to 1.2.1999. Truck met with an accident on 31.7.1999. Petitioner intimated the respondent of the accident on 13.8.1999. FIR was thereafter lodged with the police on 15.8.1999 by the petitioner. Er. Ramesh Chand Gupta, Surveyor appointed by the respondent recommended payment of Rs. 35,637/-. Out of that amount, sum of Rs. 28,084/- was paid by the respondent to Tata Finance Ltd. financier of the truck towards full and final settlement of claim.
2. Petitioner alleged that he incurred expenses on repair of truck to the tune of Rs. 2,03,079/- which amount he is entitled to be reimbursed by the respondent. On claim made for this amount being repudiated by Insurance Company, the petitioner filed complaint which was contested by the respondent. Grounds of contest need not be referred to here. District Forum allowed the complaint holding that petitioner is entitled to amount of Rs. 35,638 /-as assessed by the Surveyor and, thus, directed the respondent to pay balance amount of Rs. 7,554/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from date of complaint till realization and cost of Rs. 500/-. Dissatisfied with District Forum’s order, the petitioner filed appeal. Since there was delay of 34 days in filing appeal, an application seeking condonation of that delay was filed by the petitioner. State Commission declined to condone that delay and also disposed of the appeal on merit affirming the order of District Forum. It is this order which is being assailed in this revision petition.
3. We have heard Mr. Abhay Mani Tripathi for petitioner and Mr. P.R. Sikka for respondent.
4. It was pointed out that balance amount of Rs. 7,544/- with interest as per order of District Forum stands paid to the financier by the respondent-Insurance Company.
5. Thus, the controversy between the parties centers around the question if petitioner is entitled to be paid any amount over and above Rs. 35,638/-. Petitioner claims amount of Rs. 2,03,079/- on repair basis for which bills are stated to have been made available to the Surveyor. On inquiry, Mr. Tripathi stated that copy of Surveyor’s report dated 3.3.2000 was made available along with copy of written version to the petitioner before the District Forum. He admitted that thereafter petitioner did not file any objection assailing the correctness of the said report. Order of District Forum would show that neither the petitioner nor his Counsel was present on 26.8.2003, 28.8.2003 and 11.9.2003 when final order came to be passed by the District Forum. In the absence of challenge to the Surveyor’s report before the District Forum, we do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by the Fora below limiting the claim of petitioner to Rs. 35,638/- in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21 (b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Revision petition is, therefore, dismissed.