Anupam Dasgupta This revision petition challenges the order dated 26.02.2010 of the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short, he State Commission in FA no. 1130 of 2008. By this order, the State Commission substantially affirmed the order dated 24.05.2008 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chittorgarh (in short, he District Forum. By the said order, the District Forum had directed the petitioner (who were the opposite parties - OPs before the District Forum) to pay Rs.1 lakh (the amount of personal accident insurance), with interest @ 9% per annum from 01.05.2006 if the amount was not paid within one month. The District Forum also awarded Rs.2000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- towards costs and further directed that the total amount to be paid to the respondent/complainant would be recoverable from the defaulting officials of the Department of Posts. In appeal, the State Commission modified the order of the District Forum only to the extent that the direction to recover the amount payable to the respondent/complainant from the responsible officials was set aside. 2. The complainant is the wife of one Sushil Kumar Singhvi (deceased) who had opened a savings bank account with Post Office, Sambhupura on 23.10.1989 of which the complainant, being the wife of the deceased Sushil Kumar Singhvi, was the nominee. The Oriental Insurance Company (OIC) introduced a personal accident insurance scheme which was operated through the Post Offices. The scheme involved insurance for Rs.1 lakh in case of death due to accident, on payment of annual premium of Rs.15/- by the savings bank account holder. Sushil Kumar Savings Bank account was debited by Rs.15/- by the Post Office on 10.04.2006. Sushil Kumar died in a road accident on 13.06.2006. When the claim for the insurance amount was lodged, the OIC repudiated it on the ground that the premium in respect of Sushil Kumar account had been received by the OIC on 31.07.2006 and, therefore, the insurance cover was not available on the date he died. This led the nominee (and the wife) of the deceased Sushil Kumar to file a consumer complaint before the District Forum and the subsequent orders. 3. We have heard Mr. B.S. Sharma, Advocate on behalf of the petitioners. No one was present, however, on behalf of the respondent/complainant though notice for the hearing was duly served and the respondent had also received Rs.5000/- sent by the petitioners directly to her towards travel and other related expenses in connection with these proceedings. The matter was accordingly proceeded ex parte against the respondent/complainant. 4. The main submission made by Mr. Sharma, was that despite specific objection being taken before the District Forum, the OIC was not made a party to the complaint or subsequent proceedings. We mention this submission only to reject it because in the face of the admitted facts (recorded in detail in the impugned order of the State Commission and hence not repeated here), there can be no case of deficiency in service against the OIC. On the other hand, in view of the same admitted facts, the petitioners cannot absolve the officials concerned of the deficiency in service committed by them merely claiming that the Post Office was acting as an agent of the OIC for the insurance scheme. The admitted facts are glaring in that the Post Office, Sambhupra deducted the sum of Rs.15/- towards the premium for the insurance cover from the account of Sushil Kumar Singhvi on 10.04.2006 and the amount was duly remitted to the Head Post Office which was received by the latter along with the account form, etc., on 12.04.2006. However, it was not until 31.07.2006 when this amount of premium deducted from the account of the deceased Sushil Kumar (and amounts similarly deducted from a large number of other saving bank account holders) was remitted to the designated office of the OIC. In such a situation, the OIC was right in holding that the insurance cover did not commence till the date of receipt of the premium by it, i.e., 31.07.2006. The entire responsibility for this delay leading to repudiation of the insurance claim by the OIC in the case of deceased Sushil Kumar thus lay with the officials concerned of the Head Post Office. 5. In conclusion, we direct the petitioners to pay to the respondent/ complainant Rs.1 lakh with interest @ 9 per cent per annum from 01.05.2006 till payment and total cost of Rs.3000/- within 6 weeks from the date of this order, failing which the rate of interest shall be enhanced to 12% per annum. The revision petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.