Petitioner, PGF Ltd., which was the opposite party before the District Forum has filed the present Revision Petition. Briefly stated the facts are that the husband of the complainant/respondent booked with the petitioner a plot measuring 750 sq.ft. for Rs.25,000/- and the amount was to be paid in half-yearly instalments. Under the scheme, the petitioner had agreed to provide insurance to the husband of the respondent to the extent of 150% of booking value of the plot. Husband of the complainant died in June 2002 in an accident. By that time, respondent’s husband had paid only two instalments. Respondent/complainant lodged claim with the petitioner which was repudiated. Aggrieved by this, complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum. District Forum, vide its order dated 28.11.2006, disposed of the complaint and directed the petitioner to return the premium paid to the complainant. Aggrieved by this, the complainant filed an appeal before the State Commission, which has been allowed by the impugned order. Notice for admission was issued on 17.4.2009. Operation of the impugned order was stayed subject to deposit of 50% of the awarded amount along with accrued interest thereon within 4 weeks before the District Forum. Petitioner was also directed to remit a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the respondent to meet the litigation expenses. Petitioner deposited 50% of the amount as directed and also paid the sum of Rs.5,000/- to the respondent. Respondent, in spite of service, did not appear and ultimately on 20.10.2009, fresh Notice was ordered to be issued for today with a note that in case the respondent does not appear on the next date of hearing, she will be proceeded ex parte and the matter shall be disposed of finally. Notice was issued on 26.10.2009. 30 days from issuance of the Notice are over. Respondent is not present despite service. Ordered to be proceeded ex parte. Case of the petitioner is that the respondent is not entitled to any benefit under Clauses 5 and 6 of the agreement dated 14.4.2001 entered into between the parties. Clauses 5 and 6 of the agreement are reproduced below : “5. Grace period of 30 days is allowed for payment of yearly, half-yearly and quarterly instalments. However, the grace period is only 15 days for payment of monthly instalment. 6. When the instalment is not paid within the grace period, the contract stands discontinued, but same can be revived at any time within next 12 months on payment of all dues together with simple interest thereon @ 15% p.a. and the liquidated damages @ 5% p.a. for the period of default. However, payment for such revival shall be accepted by PGF only by cash/demand draft.” Admittedly, due date for payment of the third instalment was 14.4.2002 and the husband of the respondent died on 21.6.2002 without paying the third instalment. According to the petitioner, the agreement had lapsed and discontinued in terms of Clause 5 of the agreement. Respondent did not taken the advantage of Clause 6 of the agreement, under which, she could pay the third instalment within 12 months together with interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the last premium due. State Commission has noticed all these submissions but has allowed the complaint merely by giving a very generous interpretation of Clauses 5 and 6, which could not be given. Parties are bound by the terms of the agreement. Only on the basis of sympathy, stretched meaning cannot be assigned to a clause of the agreement. For the reasons stated above, Revision Petition is allowed and the order of the State Commission is set aside and that of the District Forum is restored. Revision Petition stands disposed of in above terms.
......................JASHOK BHANPRESIDENT
......................B.K. TAIMNIMEMBER | | 
