Heard Mr.B.P.Dutta learned senior counsel for the appellant and also heard Mr.S.P.Sharma learned counsel for the respondent.

 In this appeal the appellant of the Life Insurance Company of India has assailed the order dated 03/09/2002 passed by the District Forum, Shillong in Consumer Case No 24 (S) 1997.

The case in brief is that the husband of the respondent (L) Deep Chand Aggarwal paid the sum of Rs 1,05,000 (One Lac five thousand) by cheque on 08/06/1995 for the purpose of issuing of Life Insurance Policy to him by the appellant. (L) D.P.Agarwal made another final payment of Rs.2,01,679 (Two Lacs one thousand six hundred seventy nine) on 13/03/1996 for issuing of insurance policy to him. Both the amounts were duly received by the appellant the insurance company with the assurance that the policy would be issued to him within one month but, no policy was issued by the appellant. However, on 15/03/1997 the life insurance policy was issued to (L) D.P.Agarwal and fixing 25/01/1997 as the date of risk. On 31.03.1997 a sum of Rs.15,579 (Fifteen thousand five hundred seventy nine) was refunded by the appellant to the husband of the respondent without any interest.

Since the LIC Policy was not insured to thecomplainant inspite of the receipt of the money by the appellant, a complaint was lodge before the District Forum for awarding of interest for the gap period for which the policy was not issued after the receipt of the amount by the appellant. The refund of Rs.15,579 (Fifteen Thousand five hundred seventy nine) was also made after a long gap without any interest.Therefore an interest on this amount was also claimed  by the respondent. The records show that the only ground given by the appellant was that both the amounts were kept in suspemce account which did not bring any interest on the said amout. Therefore the appellant are not liable to any interest as claim  by the respondent. The records clearly shows that the appellaant did not deny of receiving both the amounts on 08/06/1995 and 30/03/1996. The appellant also did not deny that while refunding the sum of Rs.15,579, no interest was paid to the complainant. The deposit of the amout in suspense account by the appellant is their fault and the fault of the respondent. The amount could have been utilised in more beneficial ways if the same where was not withheld by th appellant. It is solely the responsibility of the appellant to issue the policy as soon as payment were made but, in this case no such policy was issued. Therefore, there is deficiency of service on the path of the appellant for which the respondent is entitled to be compensated.

We have also perused the records of the District Forum as well as the impugned order passed by the District Forum and we find there is no reason to interfere with the finding of the District Forum.

Accordingly we upheld the order dated 03/09/2002 passed by the District Forum and directed that the same be complied by the appellant within thirty days from the date of receipt of this order.

In the result the appeal is dismissed and disposed of.