—Order— —Shri S. K. Sharma had worked in the Coal Mines since 1967. The Coal Mines were nationalised sometime in 1973 and so Shri S. K. Sharma became an employee of Coal India Ltd. Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 ("the Act") was promulgated. The Act is to make provision for the framing of provident fund scheme (a family pension scheme) a deposit Linked Insurance Scheme and a bonus scheme for persons employed in the Coal Mines. S. 3(g) of the Act deals with Coal Mines Deposit Linked Insurance Scheme. It empowered the Central Govt. to frame Coal Mines Deposit Linked Insurance Scheme for the purpose of providing licensing benefits to such employees as are covered by Goal Mines Provident Fund Scheme. The Central Govt. framed a Scheme as mentioned in the III Schedule appended to the Act. Deposit Linked Insurance Scheme came into force from 1-8-76. Shri S.K. Sharma was covered by the aforesaid scheme and necessary deductions were made from the salary for coverage under the Deposit Linked Insurance Scheme (DLIS).. Shri S. K. Sharma expired on 6-2-80. After the death of Shri S. K. Sharma, the complainant (widow of Shri S. K. Sharma and her minor children) became entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 10,000/-under the DLIS. The opposite-party is responsible for the payment of the insurance amount under the Act. It has been alleged that the complainant submitted an application in the prescribed form DLIS for payment of DLIS to the opposite-party in the office of the Regional Commissioner, Coal Mines Provident Fund, Jabalpur. There were some formal defects in the form, inasmuch as the names of her two minor children were only shown. The complainant was asked to re-submit the application for payment. Photostat copy of the letter dt : 26-4-88 which was sent by the Assistant Finance Officer of the office of the Regional Commissioner Coal Mines Provident Fund, Jabalpur has been submitted as Anx. I. Thereupon the complainant completed the necessary formalities and sent the proper application form mentioning full details alongwith a letter. Photostat copy has been submitted as Anx. II. The complainant was informed by the office of the Regional Commissioner, Coal Mines Provident Fund, Jabalpur vide letter dt. 3-5-80 (photostat copy Anx. III) that the cheques were under issue. To quote from Anx. Photostat copy has been submitted as Anx. II. The complainant was informed by the office of the Regional Commissioner, Coal Mines Provident Fund, Jabalpur vide letter dt. 3-5-80 (photostat copy Anx. III) that the cheques were under issue. To quote from Anx. III—"This is to inform you that as per provision of the scheme payment of DLI will be directly made to the concerned bank authority as mentioned in the application of the complainant. The cheques were under issue." In the meantime the complainant shifted to Jaipur. However whenever she visited Jabalpur she was informed that she could expect payment of insurance amount at an early date. However, no payments were received. Several reminders were issued for releasing the insurance amount but they remained unresponded. Subsequently a registered letter dt: 24.11.88 (photostat copy Anx. IV) was sent for releasing the insurance amount. In response to that, the opposite-party sought various informations from the Manager of the Colliery vide letter dt : 23-12-88 (photostat copy Anx. V). The complainant wrote letter dt: 11.1.89 to the Manager of the Colliery to send the necessary information to the Regional Commissioner, Coal Mines, Provident Fund, Bilaspur so that the payment may be released. Again a letter was sent on 17-1-89 (photostat copy Anx. VII) clarifying the Saving Bank account number. The case of the complainant is that she and her minor children became entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 10,000/-soon after the death of her husband under DLIS but the opposite-party failed to render this service promptly under s. 2(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. She has prayed that the opposite-party may be directed to pay Rs. 1,42,000/- to her. This amount consists of insurance money Rs. 10,000/-, interest Rs. 30,000/-, expenses Rs. 2,000/- and compensation Rs. 1,00,000. 2. A notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite-party. The opposite-party has narrated the events to show as to why the payment was not made to the complainant. It was submitted that the Asstt. Finance Officer who assured the complainant that the case was complete in all respects and that the cheques for the DLI amount were under issue, was himself not competent to pass this case for payment. The higher authority i.e. Asstt. Commissioner, C.M.P.F., Jabalpur on a review of the case found that the documents submitted were not sufficient as they lacked information which was sought vide letter dt: 26-4-80. The higher authority i.e. Asstt. Commissioner, C.M.P.F., Jabalpur on a review of the case found that the documents submitted were not sufficient as they lacked information which was sought vide letter dt: 26-4-80. Additional ground given was that no separate advance stamped receipt in respect of each minor having independent bank account number was enclosed alongwith the application form about which she was informed accordingly. The opposite-party has stated that the case was closed on July 22, 1980 under the order of the Asstt. Commissioner C.M.P.F., Jabalpur, in pursuance of HQ C.M.P.F. Circular No. CPF/250(18) of 1-7-80. It has also been stated that the delay for payment was caused as the complainant did not submit form DLIS application on behalf of minors and advance stamped receipt in respect of minors as was required under the provisions of DLIS. Facts about splitting up of the office of the Board of Trustees were alleged. According to the opposite-party the complainant submitted the wanting information and documents to the concerned Colliery management vide her letter dt: 11.1.89. An objection was taken that it is for the State Commission to view the applicability of the Act towards the coverage of Coal Mines Deposit Linked Insurance Scheme and benefits thereunder with particular reference to the instant case and "service" as defined in the Consumer Protection Act. The complainants claim for Rs. 30,000/- as interest against the principal amount of Rs. 10,000/-was disputed on the ground that no contribution or premium was made by Lt. Shri S. K. Sharma towards the DLI Scheme and no interest whatsoever was payable thereon over and above the admissible amount as per provisions of the CM.D.L.I. Scheme. The claim for Rs. 2,000/- as expenses was also disputed. It was submitted that the complainant is not entitled to the compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-. In other words the demand for Rs. 1,42,000/- was disputed and it was submitted that Rs. 10,000/- only as benefit under C.M.D.L.I. Scheme may be admitted. Alongwith the reply photostat copies of two documents were submitted. On 24.7.89 some additions were sought to be added in paras 1, 6 and 12 of the reply. 3. During the pendency of the complaint on 4-7-89, Mr. S. K. Dubey Asstt. Commissioner, Coal Mines Provident Fund, Bilaspur submitted an application stating that four cheques of Rs. Alongwith the reply photostat copies of two documents were submitted. On 24.7.89 some additions were sought to be added in paras 1, 6 and 12 of the reply. 3. During the pendency of the complaint on 4-7-89, Mr. S. K. Dubey Asstt. Commissioner, Coal Mines Provident Fund, Bilaspur submitted an application stating that four cheques of Rs. 2,500/- each are being delivered to the complainant against the payment of her D.L.I, dues. The cheques were delivered to the complainant on her behalf as well as in her capacity, as natural guardian of the minor children. Receipt of cheques was verified and placed on record. 4. The parties stated on 24-7-89 that they do not want to produce any evidence and so at the request of the parties, arguments were heard and concluded on that day. 5. The complainant in the complaint has claimed Rs. 10,000/- as insurance money and, as stated above, this amount has already been paid on 4-7-89 against receipt. Therefore, no controversy survives so far as insurance amount of Rs. 10,000/- is concerned. 6. The complainant has claimed a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as expenses. Averments in this regard have been made in para 22 of the complaint. It has been stated that the complainant has been residing at Jaipur and had to visit number of times to Jabalpur for obtaining the money and she has spent over Rs. 2,000/- on her visits to Jabalpur and back. The case of the opposite-party in this regard "is that this amount is not recoverable as further processing of the case was held up on account of non-submission of documents/information by the complainant herself. The complainant has failed to put on record any oral or documentary evidence to prove that she personally went to the Regional office Jabalpur from Jaipur a number of times and spent Rs. 2,000/- as alleged by her in the complaint. In absence of any proof whatsoever, it is difficult for us to accept that the complainant had visited a number of times Regional Office at Jabalpur and spent Rs. 2,000/- on this account. The complainant is not entitled to get Rs. 2,000/- on account of expenses as alleged by her. The claim for Rs. 2,000/- on this account is disallowed. The complainant has stated that had the amount of Rs. 10,000/- been paid to her in Feb. 2,000/- on this account. The complainant is not entitled to get Rs. 2,000/- on account of expenses as alleged by her. The claim for Rs. 2,000/- on this account is disallowed. The complainant has stated that had the amount of Rs. 10,000/- been paid to her in Feb. 1980, the complainant would have invested it in proper securities or utilized the same for earning her livelihood and during the period of 9 years the amount of Rs. 10,000/- would have atleast become Rs. 40,000/-. She has therefore, claimed a sum of Rs. 30,000/- as interest. It may be recalled that Shri S. K. Sharma died on 6-2-80. After his death proceedings for the payment of insurance amount of Rs. 10,000/ commenced. There was exchange of correspondence between the complainant and the opposite party. However, by letter dt. 3-5-80. Asstt. Finance Officer attached to the office of Asstt. Commissioner, Coal Mines Provident Fund, Jabalpur wrote to Senior Personnel Officer Unit 1lb Valley Area, Post Office Brajraj Nagar, Distt. Sambulpur Orissa, in reply to the letter of Shri Nag regarding payment of DLL in respect of late Shri S.K. Sharma that it is to inform her that as per provisions of the scheme payment of DLI will be directly made to the concerned bank authority as mentioned in the application of the complainant and "the cheques were under issue." The cheques were under issue still the payment was not made to the complainant within a reasonable time from 3-5-80, the date mentioned in the letter which is Anx. III on the record. It appears there was further correspondence between the complainant and the opposite-party during the period 9-9-80 to 17-1-89. What appears from the correspondence is that objections regarding completing formalities and opening of the accounts in the bank were insisted upon by the opposite party whereas the complainant stated that she had completed the formalities required for getting the insurance amount and intimated the bank accounts in the names of her three minor children. She had shifted from Chandigarh to Jaipur and that caused some delay. She had shifted from Chandigarh to Jaipur and that caused some delay. Having considered the documents which have been placed on record by the parties and the reasons given by the opposite-party in the version of the case for the delayed payment of the insurance amount from 3-5-80 until the payment was made, we are of opinion that the period is unreasonable and there was no good ground for not making the payment for a long period of nine years and two months. There is justification in the submission of the complainant that had she got the amount soon after the death of Shri S. K. Sharma, she would have invested the insured amount and that would have yielded return. It would have yielded return in the shape of interest. There was negligence on the part of the Regional Commissioner, Coal Mines Provident Fund, Bilaspur in not affecting payment within a reasonable time after the complainant has submitted an application form as required soon after the death of Shri S.K. Sharma which had occurred on 6.2.80. It is surprising that by letter dt. 3.5.80 the copy of which was endorsed to the complainant, it was written that the cheques were under issue but still they were not issued and sent to Brajraj Nagar where the complainant was residing and the account numbers of the bank and the name were furnished. In the facts and circumstances of this case the complainant is to be compensated by award of interest for the loss suffered by her on account of the negligence of the opposite-party. Compensation signifies that which is given in recompense an equivalent rendered damages. On the other hand constitute the sum of money claimed or adjudged to be paid as compensation for loss or injury sustained, the value estimated in money of something lost or withheld. Interest is to be awarded to compensate the complainant. We are of considered opinion that in the interest of justice interest on the amount Rs. 10,000/- from 3-5-80 (the date of the letter Anx. III) to 4.7. 89 (the date when the amount of Rs. 10,000/- was paid during the pendency of the complaint) should be paid to the complainant @ 12% p.a. The complainant is, therefore, entitled to get a sum of Rs. 11,000/- as compensation in lieu of interest. 10,000/- from 3-5-80 (the date of the letter Anx. III) to 4.7. 89 (the date when the amount of Rs. 10,000/- was paid during the pendency of the complaint) should be paid to the complainant @ 12% p.a. The complainant is, therefore, entitled to get a sum of Rs. 11,000/- as compensation in lieu of interest. We direct the opposite-party to make this payment within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order by the Regional Commissioner, Coal Mines Provident Fund, Tilak Chowk, Bilaspur. 7. The complainant has claimed a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation from the opposite-party. Without making detailed discussion in this regard, suffice it to state that this claim is wholly untenable and frivolous as she had already claimed Rs. 30,000/- as interest. We had already allowed Rs. 11,000/- as compensation in lieu of interest and so no further amount of compensation can be awarded. 8. The result is that this complaint succeeds to this extent that the complainant is entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as insurance amount which has already been paid to her on 4-7-89 and nothing remains due against the opposite-party on this count. The complainant is further entitled to get Rs. 11,000/- from the opposite-party as compensation under s. 14 (d) of the Act as detailed hereinabove. Rest of the claims of the complainant is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. 9. Order pronounced on July 28, 1989.