Complainant/petitioner’s son was insured by New India Assurance Company Limited, respondent herein, under Students Safety Insurance Scheme for the period from 29.09.2004 to 28.09.2005.  Son of the petitioner sustained injuries in an accident by

motorcycle on 06.04.2005 and he succumbed to his injuries on 07.04.2005.  Respondent paid Rs.10,000/- whereas according to the petitioner, the insured amount was Rs.50,000/-.  Aggrieved by this, petitioner filed the complaint before the District Forum seeking payment of balance amount of Rs.40,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum and compensation of Rs.10,000/-.

          On being served, respondent entered appearance and took the stand that after formation of the State of Chhattisgarh in 2002 a Circular was issued by which the insured amount was reduced to Rs.10,000/-.

          District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the respondent to pay the balance amount of Rs.40,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from 28.11.2005 till payment.  Compensation of Rs.1,000/- and costs of Rs.500/- were also awarded.

          Respondent being aggrieved filed the appeal before the State Commission.  The State Commission set aside the order of the District Forum and dismissed the complaint.

          Counsel for the parties have been heard.

          District Forum had held that since certain students of Bhopal had been insured for a sum of Rs.50,000/-, the complainant was also entitled to the sum of Rs.50,000/-.  The State Commission reversing this finding held that the policy dated 29.09.2004 issued by the petitioner was after formation of the State of Chhattisgah and, therefore, the Circular issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh would not be applicable to the policies issued in the State of Chhattisgarh; that as per terms of the policy issued on 29.09.2004 after formation of State of Chhattisgarh, the insured amount of policy was only Rs.10,000/-.  The State Commission concluded its order by observing thus:

“We are inclined to accept the contention as above of the learned counsel for the appellant it is clear that rights and liabilities of parties would be governed by the agreement of insurance, evidenced by the policy thereof.  The said policy clearly stipulates payment of assured amount is Rs.10,000/-.  Therefore, no extraneous conditions or considerations could change the said terms of the agreement, unless said agreement was modified

by the parties by mutual consent.  Therefore, in our opinion payment of Rs.10,000/- under the policy, discharges the appellant insurer from its liability thereunder.  In any case, non-payment of balance of amount, if any, to the complainant/respondent would not be termed as deficiency in service, in the foregoing circumstances.”

          We agree with the view taken by the State Commission.  Simply because certain students of Bhopal in the State of Madhya Pradesh had been insured for a sum of Rs.50,000/-, it does not mean that the respondent is obliged to pay the respondent Rs.50,000/-;  as per policy dated 29.09.2004 the respondent had insured the son of the petitioner for Rs.10,000/-.  The respondent was required to pay Rs.10,000/- only and not Rs.50,000/- as ordered by the District Forum.

          For the reasons stated above, we do not find any error in the order passed by the State Commission.  Dismissed.