ORDER Mr. B.K. Taimni, Member: Aggrieved by the order passed by the District Forum and affirmed by the State Commission, allowing the complaint against the petitioner, this petition has been filed by the Petitioner, Chief Post Master General, Punjab, who Was the opposite party before the District Forum where the respondent / complainant had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner. 2. Undisputed facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant had purchased a Postal Life Insurance Policy 'on 24.11.1994 and he was paying a monthly premium of-Rs. 175-It was the case of the complainant that, in all, he was to make deposit of Rs. 21,000 against the Policy cover of Rs. 20,000, hence the petitioner has overcharged by Rs. 1,000,for which seeking the refund he approached the petitioner and when the matter was not getting sorted out, a complaint was filed before the District Forum, who allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to refund Rs. 1,000 charged in excess along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of maturity till the date of payment, and. cost of Rs. 500. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has filed an appeal before 'the State Commission, which was dismissed, hence this revision petition before us. 3. We heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as also. perused the material on record: We have very carefully gone through the Postal Life Insurance Policy in which it is dearly stated that premium is Rs. 175 per month. The Policy was to mature in October 2002 and the complaint was filed in 2007 after receipt of the maturity amount. Having gone through the rules relating to Endowment Assurance as well as Policy issued, which 'in terms of law, is a contract between the parties, we are left in no doubt that the petitioner did no wrong in charging Rs. 175 per month as premium as clearly stated in the Policy itself, total of which during the life of the Policy would come to over Rs. 21,000 even when the risk covered was Rs. 20,000 only. 4. We are unable to appreciate as to the rationale of both the District Forum .and State Commission arriving at the conclusion that the insurers cannot charge more money than the insured amount. 21,000 even when the risk covered was Rs. 20,000 only. 4. We are unable to appreciate as to the rationale of both the District Forum .and State Commission arriving at the conclusion that the insurers cannot charge more money than the insured amount. It should not be forgotten that the insurers have to run an organization for which there are additional overheads which have to be paid from the premium amount, not to say that they have to pay bonus as well. The total amount paid in this case came to Rs. 35,317, out of which Rs. 20,000 being the policy amount and the remaining amount being bonus. In view of above, we are unable to sustain the order passed by the District Forum and State Commission, which are set aside with a clear direction that while we are settling law in favour of the petitioner, but since the amount is quite small, we are disposing of the case without issuing notice to the respondent/ complainant on the premise, that the orders passed by the District Forum affirmed by the State Commission shall be honoured by the petitioner. This case shall not be quoted as a precedent in any such similar matter. 5. This revision petition stands disposed of in above terms. Revision Petition disposed of.