ORDER M.B. SHAH.J. PRESIDENT Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and order dated 14.05.04 in appeal No. 765/03 passed by the State Commission, Uttranchal, the United India Insurance Company Co. has preferred this Revision Petition. 2. Admittedly, Complainant was the owner of a Marshal jeep which he had purchased in the year 1998 after taking a loan of Rs.3,17,000l-. He also took continuous insurance policy for the same. It was stolen on 14/15.11.01. For that purpose FIR was lodged at the Police Station. However, the police could not trace the jeep. Therefore, final report u/s 173 of Cr. PC was submitted before the Magistrate. The same was accepted. The Complainant also lodged a claim before the Insurance Company for a sum of Rs.2,55,000/i.e. on the basis of the insurance policy. On the basis of surveyor's report the Insurance Company paid Rs. 1,20,000/to the Complainant which amount was accepted by him. It has been pointed out by the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant that as the bank was pressing for money there was no alternative for him but to accept that amount under duress. This fact is also mentioned in the surveyor's report dated 9.05.02 that in spite of many rounds of discussions, the insured has not furnished the consent letter. Whatever may be the position, it is apparent that the Complainant was forced to accept the said amount because of his tight financial position. 3. Thereafter complaint was filed before the District Forum. The District Forum after considering the market value of the vehicle, arrived at the conclusion that the Insurance Company shall pay Rs.2,37,750/- as value of vehicle and Rs.30,000/- 'as compensation for deficiency in service. It also awarded Rs.3,000/-as costs by its judgment and order dated 7.08.03. That order was challenged by the Insurance Company by filing aforesaid appeal. The State Commission partly allowed the appeal by setting aside the award of Rs.30,000/-. 4. At the time of hearing of this matter, Learned Counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the Complainant has accepted Rs. 1,20,000/- and, therefore, the complaint was not maintainable. He further submitted that market value was assessed by the surveyor and, therefore, there was no reason to award Rs.2,37,750/- as compensation for the loss suffered by the complainant. 5. In our view, the aforesaid submissions are without any substance. Admittedly, the insured had purchased the vehicle in 1998 by paying Rs.3,17,000l-. 1,20,000/- and, therefore, the complaint was not maintainable. He further submitted that market value was assessed by the surveyor and, therefore, there was no reason to award Rs.2,37,750/- as compensation for the loss suffered by the complainant. 5. In our view, the aforesaid submissions are without any substance. Admittedly, the insured had purchased the vehicle in 1998 by paying Rs.3,17,000l-. Further after taking into consideration the depreciation the Complainant has taken insurance policy for a sum of Rs.2,55,000/-. It is the say of the Complainant that at the time of renewing the policy valuation of the jeep was verified by the insurance agent. However, that fact is disputed by the Insurance Company Whatever may be the-position, as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy in such cases as per the depreciation table provided in the police, if the age of the vehicle is between 3 to 4 ~'ears, depreciation would be @ 25% . No doubt as per the policy, this is for the parts of the vehicle. Still, however, this is an indicator of how the value of the vehicle is to be assessed. Taking into consideration that aspect, if there is 25% deduction of 3,17,000/- the amount would be Rs.2,37,750/-. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the orders passed by the District Forum and the State Commission awarding compensation of Rs.2,37,750/- for the loss of jeep, are, in any way, erroneous. 6. Learned Counsel for the Complainant, however, submitted that there was no justifiable ground for the State Commission to set aside the award of Rs.30,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service. In our view, as no Revision Petition is filed by the Complainant against the said part of the order of the State Commission, we do not think that this is a fit case for interference. However, apart from the costs awarded, we direct that the Insurance Company shall pay Rs.10,000/- as costs to the Complainant. Interest awarded by the District Forum is maintained. The Revision Petition stands disposed of accordingly. Interim relief granted by this Commission stands vacated. The Insurance Company is, therefore, directed to pay the remaining amount with interest @ 12% within a period of eight weeks from today. Dasti in addition.