ORDER (Per: C.C. Pant, Member): This appeal is directed against the order dated 03.11.2010 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar, allowing the consumer complaint No. 280 of 2008 and directing the opposite party No. 1 – appellant to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 50,000/- within a month from the date of the order. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that late Sh. Devichand Saini, the father of the complainant, was insured with Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited – opposite party No. 1 under an accidental insurance scheme linked with the purchase of fertilizer. The assured died on 16.03.2008 in a road accident. The complainant filed the insurance claim with the insurance company after completing all the formalities. According to the complainant, he was entitled to get a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- against the said insurance policy, but the insurance company repudiated the claim on the ground that the complainant had not submitted the copy of the FIR, Panchnama, documents relating to the treatment of the assured and the postmortem report. Thus, alleging deficiency in service, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Haridwar, which was allowed by the District Forum vide impugned order dated 03.11.2010 in the above terms. Aggrieved by the said order, the insurance company has filed this appeal. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material placed on record. None appeared on behalf of the respondents despite proper service of the notice. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant had settled the insurance claim after the investigation and had remitted an amount of Rs. 36,144/- vide cheque No. 324220. The complainant had received this cheque on 24.10.2008. Learned counsel further submitted that under the said insurance scheme for the farmers, the head of the family was insured for a sum of Rs. 4,000/- for each bag of fertilizer purchased by him. The father of the complainant had purchased 9 bags of fertilizer and, accordingly, he was insured for a sum of Rs. 36,000/-. Learned counsel admitted that the claim was repudiated initially, but after making an investigation, it was settled for Rs. 36,144/-. These facts were mentioned in the written statement filed by the appellant before the District Forum, but the District Forum ignored the same and awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- without any basis. 5. 36,000/-. Learned counsel admitted that the claim was repudiated initially, but after making an investigation, it was settled for Rs. 36,144/-. These facts were mentioned in the written statement filed by the appellant before the District Forum, but the District Forum ignored the same and awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- without any basis. 5. We considered the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. After perusing the record carefully, we find that the father of the complainant had purchased nine bags of fertilizer (Paper No. 27). Under the insurance scheme known as “Sankat Haran (Kisan Gramin Bima Yojna)”, the farmer is provided an insurance cover with the following terms and conditions (Paper Nos. 28 and 29): “A. Definition of Words: 1. ……………………………. 2. ……………………………. 3. ……………………………. 4. ……………………………. 5. Capital Sum Insured It means the monetary amount as per details hereunder: “One “SANKAT HARAN” Bima cover for Capital Sum Insured of “Rs. 4,000/- (Rupees four thousand only) for each and every purchase of IFFCO Fertilizer bag by any farmer subject to Total Maximum Capital Sum Insured of Rs. 100,000/- (Rupees one lakh) to any one farmer under this Policy and Policies to be issued in future under the same scheme during the period of insurance. Fertilizer purchased during the period of 12 months preceding the date of accident during the currency of the Scheme on different dates shall have an accumulative effect. However, the maximum Capital Sum Insured under all policies under similar schemes based on total quantity of fertilizer purchased from IFFCO and IPL taken together, shall be limited to Rs. One lakh only.” 6. Accordingly, the appellant had settled the claim for Rs. 36,144/- and a cheque dated 18.09.2008 was sent to the complainant (Paper No. 25). The appellant, while replying to the consumer complaint, had brought these facts to the notice of the District Forum in its written statement (Paper Nos. 17 and 18), but the District Forum has completely ignored it and has awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- in a most arbitrary manner. We can not support such an order and, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and this appeal deserves to be allowed and the consumer complaint is liable to be dismissed. 7. Appeal is allowed. Order impugned dated 03.11.2010 passed by the District Forum is set aside and consumer complaint No. 280 of 2008 is dismissed. We can not support such an order and, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and this appeal deserves to be allowed and the consumer complaint is liable to be dismissed. 7. Appeal is allowed. Order impugned dated 03.11.2010 passed by the District Forum is set aside and consumer complaint No. 280 of 2008 is dismissed. No order as to costs.