With the consent of counsel for the parties, the Revision Petition is being disposed of at the admission hearing.

          Petitioner insurance company was the opposite party before the District Forum.

-2-

          Wife of the respondent/complainant was insured with the petitioner insurance company for a sum of Rs.1 Lac.  She paid the installments of premium.  She expired as a result of burn injuries due to leakage of cooking gas in the kitchen on 13.11.1999.  Police complaint was lodged.  Respondent being the nominee submitted the insurance claim which was not settled by the petitioner insurance company for the reason that the respondent had failed to submit the relevant documents.  As the claim was not settled, respondent served a legal notice upon petitioner but no action was taken.  Being aggrieved, the complainant/respondent filed the complaint in the year 2003 before the District Forum.

          District Forum disposed of the complaint with a direction to the petitioner to decide the claim of the respondent afresh.  After reappraisal of the claim filed by the respondent, petitioner accepted the claim and paid the insured amount along with accidental benefit claimed to the respondent on 03.7.2004.  No interest was paid as the District Forum had not issued a direction to pay the amount along

-3-

with interest.  Being aggrieved, respondent filed second complaint before the District Forum seeking interest which was allowed and the petitioner was directed to pay the interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till the payment of amount.  

          Respondent, thereafter, filed the appeal before the State Commission seeking interest from a date much prior to the date of complaint. 

The case of the petitioner was that the complaint had been filed in the year 2003 after a lapse of ten years, which was much beyond the period of limitation prescribed for filing the complaint.  Petitioner had accepted the claim on humanitarian grounds.  The State Commission accepted the plea of the petitioner that there was a delay in filing the complaint, but taking a midcourse directed the petitioner to pay interest from 01.1.1999 till the date of payment, i.e., 03.2.2004.

          Being aggrieved, petitioner has filed the present revision petition raising a plea that the respondent could not be given interest w.e.f. 01.1.1999.

-4-

          Counsel for the parties have been heard at length. 

          The insured had died on 13.11.1999.  Complaint was filed in the year 2003.  District Forum directed the petitioner to decide the claim of the respondent afresh and the petitioner after reappraisal of the facts accepted the claim petition and paid the insured amount along with accidental benefits to the respondent.  Since no interest was paid, respondent filed the second complaint seeking interest on the amount paid.  District Forum in its wisdom directed the petitioner to pay interest from the date of filing of the complaint.  In our view, State Commission was not justified in directing the petitioner to pay interest w.e.f. 01.1.1999, i.e., four years prior to the filing of the complaint.  Since the complaint had been filed after a delay of ten years, interest could be directed to be paid only from the date of filing of the complaint and not from a date prior thereto.  In our view, the State Commission has clearly erred in directing the petitioner to pay interest w.e.f. 01.1.1999.

-5-

For the reasons stated above, order of the State Commission is set aside and that of the District Forum is restored.  Revision petition stands disposed of in above terms.

Counsel for the petitioner states that the interest from the date of filing of the complaint till 03.7.2004 has already been paid to the respondent.  counsel for the respondent disputes this submission.  Petitioner is directed to pay the interest amount, if not already paid, to the respondent within a period of four weeks.