ORDER P.S. Rana (R), President. - Present revision petition filed under section 17(1)(b) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against interim order passed by learned District Forum Kangra at Dharamshala dated 27.12.2016 in execution application No. 31 of 2016 title Smt. Raj Chopra v. The United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr. Brief facts of Case: 2. Complainant namely Smt. Raj Chopra filed consumer complaint No. 80 of 2015 title Smt. Raj Chopra v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr. which was decided by learned District Forum on dated 26.04.2016. Learned District Forum directed opposite parties jointly and severally to assess the claim of complainant on the basis of actual bill submitted by complainant for the period w.e.f. 23.12.2013 to 04.09.2014 and to pay sum within sixty days. Learned District Forum further ordered opposite parties to pay compensation for harassment to the tune of Rs. 5000/- (Five thousand). Learned District Forum further ordered opposite parties to pay Rs. 3000/- (Three thousand) as litigation costs to complainant. Order of learned District Forum attained the stage of finality. 3. Thereafter execution application filed by Smt. Raj Chopra before learned District Forum Kangra at Dharamshala. United India Insurance Company Ltd. filed objections to execution petition pleaded therein that opposite parties assess claim to the tune of Rs. 56335/- (Fifty six thousand three hundred thirty five) and duly paid the amount due. Opposite party also filed objection that an amount of Rs. 8000/- (Eight thousand) also deposited as compensation and litigation costs. Prayer for dismissal of execution petition sought. 4. Learned District Forum vide interim order dated 27.12.2016 held that complainant has spent Rs. 261391/- (Two lac sixty one thousand three hundred ninety one) on the basis of actual bills submitted by complainant. Learned District Forum further held that insurance company ought to pay Rs. 261391/- (Two lac sixty one thousand three hundred ninety one) to Smt. Raj Chopra. Learned District Forum further ordered opposite parties to pay amount of Rs. 261391/- minus Rs. 55335/- i.e. Rs. 206056/- (Two lac six thousand fifty six) to complainant on or before 24.01.2017 failing which coercive methods would be adopted. Learned District Forum listed the case on 24.01.2017. Feeling aggrieved against interim order present revision petition is filed before State Commission by insurance company. 5. 261391/- minus Rs. 55335/- i.e. Rs. 206056/- (Two lac six thousand fifty six) to complainant on or before 24.01.2017 failing which coercive methods would be adopted. Learned District Forum listed the case on 24.01.2017. Feeling aggrieved against interim order present revision petition is filed before State Commission by insurance company. 5. We have heard learned advocate appearing on behalf of revisionist and we have also heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of non-revisionists and we have also perused entire record carefully. 6. Following points arises for determination in present revision petition. 1. Whether revision petition filed by revisionist is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of revision petition. 2. Final order. Findings upon point No. 1 with reasons: 7. Submissions of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionist that complainant ought to file fresh complaint if the complainant was aggrieved from the reassessment conducted by insurance company is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. We have carefully perused the order passed by learned District Forum. Operative para-10 is quoted in toto. "Accordingly, the complaint is partly allowed. The opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to reassess the claim of the complainant on the basis of actual bills submitted by the complainant for the period w.e.f. 23.12.2013 to 04.09.2014 and pay the same within 60 days from today. The complainant is also held entitled to Rs. 5000/- as compensation for harassment etc. and Rs. 3000/- towards litigation charges. A copy of this order be sent to the parties, free of costs, by post and the file after its due completion be consigned to the record room." 8. Opposite parties were ordered jointly and severally to reassess the claim of complainant on the basis of actual bills submitted by complainant for the period w.e.f. 23.12.2013 to 04.09.2014. We are of the opinion that insurance company was under legal obligation to reassess the claim on the basis of actual bills submitted by complainant. There is no allegations by insurance company that complainant has submitted forged bills. Insurance company has not classified the forged bills in a positive manner. It is held that only forged bills were to be excluded from the calculation and it is held that actual bills submitted by complainant were not to be excluded from the assessment. 9. There is no allegations by insurance company that complainant has submitted forged bills. Insurance company has not classified the forged bills in a positive manner. It is held that only forged bills were to be excluded from the calculation and it is held that actual bills submitted by complainant were not to be excluded from the assessment. 9. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionist that learned District Forum has traversed beyond its own order in execution proceedings is also rejected being devoid of any force for reasons hereinafter mentioned. We have carefully perused the order passed by learned District Forum. We are of the opinion that learned District Forum has simply complied the order passed in consumer complaint No. 80 of 2015 title Smt. Raj Chopra v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr. It is held that learned District Forum has not traversed beyond its own order in any manner. 10. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionist that revisionist has complied final order dated 26.04.2016 passed by learned District Forum in consumer complaint No. 80 of 2015 and on this ground revision petition be accepted is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. We are of the opinion that revisionist has complied only partly final order of learned District Forum dated 26.04.2016 and did not comply totally final order of learned District Forum dated 26.04.2016 announced in consumer complaint No. 80 of 2015 title Smt. Raj Chopra v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr. 11. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of insurance company that insurance company is under legal obligation to settle the claim of complainant strictly as per insurance policy and on this ground revision petition be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. We are of the opinion that order of learned District Forum in consumer complaint No. 80 of 2015 decided on 26.04.2016 has attained the stage of finality. Insurance company did not challenge the final order passed by learned District Forum in consumer complaint No. 80 of 2015 by way of appeal before State Commission or Hon''ble National Commission. We are of the opinion that order of learned District Forum in consumer complaint No. 80 of 2015 decided on 26.04.2016 has attained the stage of finality. Insurance company did not challenge the final order passed by learned District Forum in consumer complaint No. 80 of 2015 by way of appeal before State Commission or Hon''ble National Commission. It is held that in consumer complaint No. 80 of 2015 learned District Forum has ordered the opposite parties in a positive manner to reassess the claim of complainant on the basis of actual bills submitted by complainant w.e.f. 23.12.2013 to 04.09.2014. It is held that insurance company is under legal obligation to consider the actual bills submitted by complainant w.e.f. 23.12.2013 to 04.09.2014. It is held that insurance company was only at liberty to exclude forged bills. Insurance company did not submit the details of forged bills in response. In view of above stated facts point No. 1 is answered in negative. Point No. 2: Final Order 12. In view of findings upon point No. 1 revision petition is dismissed and interim order of learned District Forum Kangra at Dharamshala dated 27.12.2016 announced in execution application No. 31 of 2016 is affirmed. Parties are left with to bear their own litigation costs before State Commission. File of learned District Forum along with certified copy of order be sent back forthwith. Parties are directed to appear before learned District Forum on 28.04.2017. File of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion forthwith. Certified copy of order be transmitted to parties forthwith free of cost strictly as per rules. Revision petition is disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.