ORDER
K.S. Gupta, J. (Presiding Member)
1. In this revision, challenge is to the order dated 3.1.2006 of Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore dismissing appeal against the order dated 16.11.2005 of a District Forum whereby on a complaint filed by petitioner the respondent/opposite party was directed to pay amount of Rs. 81,639.52 with interest 9% p.a. and cost.
2. Petitioner owned a lorry bearing a registration No. KA-06-1746 which was insured with respondent Insurance Company for the period from 3.4.1993 to 2.4.1994 for Rs. 4,75,000. Lorry met with an accident on 7.1.1994 and was damaged. Petitioner alleged that an amount of Rs. 3,30,000 was incurred on repairs. On claim b for this amount being repudiated the petitioner filed complaint which was resisted by the respondent by filing written version. By the order dated 25.6.2002 while allowing complaint the District Forum ordered the respondent to pay amount of Rs. 3,30,000 with interest 9% c p.a. from 1.7.1999. Dissatisfied with this order the respondent filed appeal being No. 582/ 2002. Appeal was allowed by the State Commission and case remanded to the District Forum for determining the amount of compensation afresh after affording opportunity to both the parties to lead additional evidence, by the order dated 11.10.1994. After remand, complaint was disposed of vide order dated 16.11.2005 by the District Forum which on appeal filed by the petitioner was upheld by the State Commission. On 4.4.2006 the petitioner has filed application seeking permission to produce certain bills. Along with application copy of letter dated 10.8.1999 sent by the petitioner to the respondent for supply of xerox copies of the bills submitted, has also been filed. Copies of order of District Forum dated 16.11.2005and additional affidavit filed by way of evidence by K.R. Somashekar are placed on the file. Said order would show that Surveyor appointed by the respondent-Insurance Company has assessed the damages to the lorry to the tune of Rs. 81,639.52. It is this amount for which award was passed by the District Forum. 9 Discussion made particularly in para 10 of the District Forum’s order would indicate that in support of quantum of compensation the petitioner relied upon the report of its Surveyor but for the reasons best known to petitioner, it did not file that report. Order of State Commission under challenge notices that though the petitioner had filed certain bills of having spent amount to get the lorry repaired but no affidavit of the person who issued those bills or affidavit of the owner of garage were filed. In absence of proof of those bills and/or petitioner’s Surveyor report no fault can be found in basing the assessment of compensation on the report of Surveyor appointed by the Insurance Company. At this juncture, petitioner cannot be allowed permission to file additional bills and prove them. If the copies of bills were not made available pursuant to the letter dated 10.8.1999 by the respondent it was open to the petitioner to have moved the District Forum for supply thereof to it. There is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by fora below warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of C.P. Act, 1986. Revision Petition is, therefore, dismissed.