Petitioner was the complainant before the District Forum.

          Petitioner took a life insurance policy of Rs.25,000/-.  As per the policy, first survival benefit of Rs.6,250/- was due on 28.10.1994 but the same was paid on 28.10.1999.  The second instalment of survival benefit was to be paid on 28.10.2000 but the respondent issued the cheque on 6.2.2003 in the name of one Rajendra Prasad Agarwal.  As the name was wrongly mentioned, petitioner returned the cheque.  Petitioner’s name is Rajendra Kumar Agarwal and not Rajendra Prasad Agarwal.  Again on 9.5.2003, another cheque was issued in the name of the petitioner but without any interest.  The same was returned to the respondent.  Respondent thereafter issued a cheque on 23.6.2003 with interest, which was not taken by the petitioner, as the respondent had not explained the delay to the petitioner.  Taking this to be deficiency in service, petitioner filed a complaint before the District Forum.

          District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the respondent to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation along with second instalment of money along with interest as per the policy provision within one month from the date of passing the order till realization. 

Petitioner as well as the respondent filed appeals before the State Commission.  Petitioner filed the appeal seeking enhancement of compensation whereas the respondent filed the appeal challenging the grant of compensation amount of Rs.10,000/- being excessive. State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner.  Appeal filed by the respondent was allowed to the extent that the compensation amount of Rs.10,000/- was set aside. 

It is not disputed before us that the petitioner has been paid the second survival benefit instalment amounting to Rs.6,250/- with interest of Rs.1,423/- thereon.  The total amount paid to the petitioner on account of second survival benefit along with interest is Rs.7,673/-.  State Commission came to the conclusion that the compensation of Rs.10,000/- was not justified, as the petitioner had been paid the second survival benefit along with interest.  Aggrieved against the order passed by the State Commission, petitioner has filed the present Revision Petition with the grievance that the State Commission has erred in setting aside the award of compensation of Rs.10,000/-.

Counsel for the parties have been heard.

We agree with the view taken by the State Commission that the sum of Rs.10,000/- by way of compensation was excessive in the given facts and circumstances of the case.  The State Commission has erred in deleting the compensation all together.  Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the respondent to pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the petitioner within 6 weeks from today failing which respondent would be liable to pay interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of passing of the order by the District Forum till realization.

While admitting the Revision Petition on 21.2.2006, we had directed the respondent to deposit Rs.10,000/- with the District Forum giving liberty to the petitioner to withdraw the same.  In case, the said amount has already been withdrawn by the petitioner, then the same be not recovered.  Otherwise, the respondent would be at liberty to withdraw the amount deposited by it before the District Forum and pay the sum of Rs.5,000/- as directed hereinabove.

Revision Petition stands disposed of in above terms.