No one appears for respondent-LIC of India, which can be said to be the main contesting party in the present proceedings. Learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5 is present. We have heard Mr. M. P. Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N. K. Sharma, learned counsel for respondents No. 4 and 5. The only controversy raised by the petitioner is in regard to the amount payable under four policies. It is not disputed that the face value of four policies was Rs.10,000/-, Rs.11,000/- Rs.25,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- totaling to Rs.51,000/- alongwith interest. Such direction -3- of the State Commission stands already complied by paying the amount to the petitioner. However, the contention is that the policies issued by the L.I.C. of India were prefaced as ‘Twenty year Money Back Policy with Profits (with Accident Benefit)’ and as per clause 10 (b) of the terms and conditions of the policies, the complainant is entitled to accidental benefit because the assured died in an accident. Learned counsel for the complainant-petitioner submits that the State Commission while quantifying the total amount payable under the four policies in question has wrongly computed the payable amount as Rs.51,000/- and the amount should have been worked out as Rs.1,02,000/- going by the provisions of clause 10(b) of the terms and conditions of the policy, i.e. double the amount insured. There appears to be force in this contention and it appears that the State Commission while computing the total amount under the four policies have overlooked this important aspect that the policies provided for payment of accident benefit i.e. double the amount of the policies to the nominee in case of death on account of accident. -4- Having considered the matter in its entirety, we are of the view that the present petition should be allowed and the order of the State Commission should be modified to the extent that the figure of Rs.51,000/- appearing in the operative part of the impugned order shall be substituted as Rs.1,02,000/- with all other stipulations remaining unchanged. We order accordingly. LIC of India is called upon to remit the balance amount as per this order to the complainant-petitioner within six weeks. The revision petition is disposed of accordingly. …..…………………..………. (R. C. JAIN, J.) PRESIDING MEMBER ….…………………………… ( S. K. NAIK ) MEMBER Mr. Kamal Mehta, learned counsel for the opposite party appears and he has been apprised of the order. | 
