This revision petition challenges the order dated 10.03.2011 of the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad (in short, he State Commission in First Appeal no. 295 of 2009. By this order, the State Commission dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. The appeal filed by the petitioner was, in turn, against the order dated 30.07.2008 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhuj Kachchh (in short, he District Forum in complaint case no. 171 of 2004 filed by the respondents. 2. The respondents are the legal heirs of Late Hetubha Bharmalji Jadeja. Under an insurance scheme obtained by the Government of Gujarat from the petitioner, all registered farmers in the State were covered against accidental death and disability during the period 26.01.2002 25.01.2003. The amount assured was Rs. 1 lakh in case of accidental death. Hetubha Jadeja, a famer died of accidental electrocution on 13.05.2002. As the legal heirs and nominees of the deceased Hetubha, the respondents filed their insurance claim immediately thereafter with the designated officer of the State Government. According to them, the said officer (Assistant Director of Agriculture (Extension), Training and Visits Scheme, Sub Division Bhachau, Kachchh) examined the claim and forwarded it to the petitioner on 11.07.2002. However, despite regular follow-up on behalf of the respondents, the petitioner neither paid the sum insured nor informed them about the status of the claim. Finally, by letter dated 14.08.2003, the aforesaid Assistant Director of Agriculture informed the respondents that the petitioner had repudiated the claim on the ground that Hetubha was not a registered farmer on 25.01.2002, the date of commencement of the insurance policy. 3. Aggrieved by this decision of the petitioner, the legal representatives of Hetubha Jadeja (respondents here) filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner (which was opposite party OP 3 - before the District Forum) and praying for directions to it to pay the amount insured (Rs.1 lakh) in addition to compensation of Rs.10,000/- for mental agony and suffering and Rs.5,000/- towards costs. 4. After detailed appraisal of evidence brought on record, including the village records of rights and terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 1 lakh (insured sum) with interest @ 12% per annum from 11.08.2002 till final payment and Rs.3,000/- towards cost to complainant 1 (respondent 1 wife of deceased Hetubha Jadeja) within two months of the order. 5. It was against this order of the District Forum that the petitioner went up in appeal before the State Commission which, in turn, dismissed the appeal by its impugned order, as noticed above. 6 (i) We have heard Mr. Sameer Nandwani, learned counsel for the petitioner who, in compliance of an earlier direction of this Commission, has produced photocopies as well as English translation of the relevant village records of rights/register of mutation and other documents which were produced before the District Forum. (ii) The relevant record shows that Hetubha Jadeja along with Nagubha, Makhubha and Veerubha, all sons of the deceased Bharmalji became co-owners of agricultural land standing in the name of their father as his legal representatives/heirs and thus, registered farmers themselves. The relevant record has an entry to the effect that Bharmalji Bapeeji Jadeja had died about five months ago. The only date recorded on this page of the record of rights/register of mutations is 12.04.2002. From this, it would appear that Bharmal ji Bapeeji Jadeja died sometime in December 2001. However, the entries do not reflect when the application for mutation in their names was submitted by the legal heirs of Bharmalji Bapeeji Jadeja. It would, however, appear that the petitioner repudiated the claim of the respondents/complainants on the assumption that it was on 12.04.2002 that Hetubha Jadeja, along with other co-sharers/legal heirs, became a registered farmer after the death of his father Bharmalji Bapeeji Jadeja. 7. The District Forum has discussed this matter in detail and observed as under: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxHere in the present case we find that the dispute involved between the parties is whether the deceased was a registered farmer or not at the time of the inception of the policy. So at this stage it is pertinent to note the conditions laid down by the Government. The Registered FarmersAccidental Insurance Policy came to be implemented from 12.01.1996 by Government resolution. As per the scheme declared by the Government, following conditions were imposed for getting benefits of the insurance scheme: (i) Deceased should be a registered farmer (ii) Age of the agriculturist must be between 12 to 70 years. (iii) Permanent disability/death occurred should be due to accident. (iv) He must be possessing not more than 5 hectares of irrigated land. According to the above four conditions, three conditions are fulfilled. The deceased was 42 years of age at the time of death as mentioned in station diary and inquest panchnama. The copy of the station diary clearly shows that he died due to electric shock. The death report sent by Adhoi ASI to the Civil Surgeon shows that death occurred due to electric shock. The copy of Village Form no. 6 record of rights extract and the copy of Village Form no. 7/12 extract show that the land possessed by the deceased was less than 5 hectares of irrigated land and there is no dispute regarding this, that deceased was not holding more than 5 hectares of irrigated land. As far as the first condition is concerned that deceased should be registered farmer, the Insurance Company has rejected the claim on the ground that at the inception of the policy, i.e., 26.01.2002 he was not a registered farmer, he became registered farmer after the inception of policy, i.e., on 12.04.2002; therefore, he is not covered under the insurance policy. We have gone through the material available on record and carefully perused the resolution issued by the Government dated 12.01.1996. There is nothing on record to show that an agriculturist who becomes a registered farmer after the inception of policy is not covered. The condition laid down by the Government clearly mentions that deceased should be a registered farmer. Here in the present case the policy period commenced from 26.01.2002 to 25.01.2003. The deceased became registered farmer on 12.04.2002. The copy of Village Form 6, record of rights extract and the copy of Village Form 7/12 extract are produced by the complainant at mark 3/6 to 3/8. The deceased died on 13.05.2002. Thus at the time of death deceased Shri Hetubha Bharmalji Jadeja was a registered farmer. Now as far as the contention raised by the learned advocate for the opponent no. 3 is concerned that no premium was received by them from the Government for the deceased, as he had become registered farmer after the inception of the policy, the premium of Rs.3,12,25,668/- was received for total number of registered farmers, i.e., Rs.54,30,551/-. So the legal heirs of the deceased are not entitled to get any compensation from them. We carefully perused the conditions laid down by the Government in which it is mentioned that age of an agriculturist must be between 12 to 70 years. The registered farmer who is less than 12 years will be automatically covered in the future from the date he completes 12 years and will be covered under the scheme till he attains the age of 70 years till the end of the financial year. Considering this provision of resolution of Government we can safely conclude that it was the intention of the Government to extend the benefits of the scheme to those farmers who acquire eligibility criteria even after the commencement of the policy. And accordingly, since the deceased had become registered farmer after the inception of policy, he was deemed to have been covered under the insurance scheme. If the Government wanted to exclude the farmer who had become registered farmer after the inception of policy then in that case the Government would have made specific reference in the GR for exclusion of benefits to those farmers who have acquired land after the inception of policy. No such exclusion clause is found in the resolution. We are of the opinion that it was the intention of the Government to extend the benefits of the scheme automatically to those farmers who became registered farmer after the inception of the policy. Farmers who completes the age of 12 years are automatically covered under the scheme and therefore, by necessary implication it can be inferred that the farmers who acquire the land or who become the registered farmers after the commencement of policy are also deemed to have been covered under the scheme automatically. Therefore, the heirs of the deceased are also entitled to get the benefits under the scheme. It is the settled principle of interpretation that when two views are possible, than the view favourable to the insured should be preferred. Insurance policy is a contract for the benefit of insured and interpretation should promote its object and serve interest of consumer. If two interpretations are possible, one which favours the consumer is to be adopted. Further it is also settled principle of interpretation of statutes that when policy conditions are not clear and capable of more than one interpretation, the interpretation beneficial to consumer should be adopted. In light of these principles we are of the firm opinion that though the deceased had become registered farmer after the inception of the policy he was well covered under the scheme as soon as he acquired the land and became registered farmer during the policy period or after the inception of the policy. [Emphasis supplied] 8. Nothing among the records produced by Mr. Nandwani (from among those produced before and considered by the District Forum) is contrary to the cogent analysis of the documentary evidence by the District Forum. Moreover, if as per the entries in Village Form 6 extract, the date of death of Bharmalji Bapeeji Jadeja was nearly five months before the date of the said entry, i.e., 12.04.2002, Bharmalji died sometime in December 2001. Hence, all his legal heirs became registered farmers immediately after the death of their father and it was only the statutory process of registration of the legal heirs in the village record of rights after the death of a farmer that took time, leading to the final entry showing the names of Hetubha Jadeja and others as the legal heirs of their deceased father in the record of rights pertaining to the agricultural land owned by their father being made in Village Form 6 on 12.04.2002. Therefore, it has to be held that sometime in December 2001, i.e., well before 26.01.2002, the date of inception of the insurance policy in question, Hetubha Jadeja became a registered farmer as one of the legal heirs of his deceased father who was a registered farmer. Hence, on his death in May 2002, his heirs, i.e., the respondents/complainants were entitled to receive the sum insured within 30 days of the proposal for claim being submitted. Thus, there is nothing in the petitioner case to hold that the order of the State Commission affirming the order of the District Forum suffers from any jurisdictional error or legal infirmity or material irregularity calling for intervention under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 9. In view of the foregoing discussion, we dismiss the revision petition in limine.