ORDER (Per: Justice B.C. Kandpal, President): This is insurer’s appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 12.12.2011 passed by the District Forum, Udham Singh Nagar in consumer complaint No. 58 of 2006, whereby the District Forum has cancelled the claim repudiation letter and directed the appellant – opposite party No. 1 to settle the claim and to pay the claim amount to the respondent No. 1 – complainant. The District Forum also directed the appellant to pay sum of Rs. 3,000/- to the respondent No. 1 towards mental agony and Rs. 2,000/- towards litigation expenses. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that late Sh. Surendra Singh, the deceased husband of the complainant, was the Member of opposite party No. 2 – Samiti. The Members of the Samiti were to be provided insurance cover on purchase of each bag of Iffco fertilizer for maximum sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The Members of the Samiti were to be insured under Sankat Haran Kisan Gramin Bima Yojana of the appellant. Late Sh. Surendra Singh purchased fertilizer from the Samiti. The dead body of the insured was found on 13.12.2005 in Nepal. The complainant lodged the claim, which was repudiated by the insurance company vide letter dated 01.02.2006. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Udham Singh Nagar. 3. The insurance company filed written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that as per the Nepali Calendar, the postmortem of the dead body was conducted on 15.11.2005 and the dead body was found on 14.11.2005 and on 16.11.2005, the dead body was handed over to the brother of the deceased – life assured; that the FIR was lodged on 13.12.2005 and in the said FIR, it was mentioned that the deceased was missing from 10.12.2005 and hence how the dead body of the deceased could be found on 14.11.2005; that under the terms and conditions of the policy, the death of the life assured under the territory of the Union of India only was covered and that there was no deficiency in service on their part in repudiating the claim. The Samiti did not file any written statement before the District Forum. 4. The Samiti did not file any written statement before the District Forum. 4. The District Forum, on an appreciation of the material on record, allowed the consumer complaint vide impugned order dated 12.12.2011 in the above terms. Aggrieved by the said order, the insurance company has filed this appeal. 5. None appeared on behalf of respondent No. 2 – Samiti. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and respondent No. 1 – complainant and have also perused the record. 6. The complainant has stated that the dead body of her husband was found by the police in Nepal on 13.12.2005 in injured condition. A certificate dated 19.12.2005 has been issued by the Police Inspector, Dhan Bahadur Kathayat, Nepal, wherein it has been mentioned that Sh. Surendra Singh Rana S/o Sh. Nain Singh Rana, R/o Village Baruwa Bagh, Sisona, Tehsil Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar, was found dead in injured condition on 13.12.2005. On the other hand, the insurance company has stated that since the dead body of the life assured was handed over to his brother on 16.11.2005 and hence the question of missing of the life assured from 10.12.2005 does not arise. 7. The claim was repudiated by the insurance company on the ground that the life assured had died in Nepal and, as such, the claim is not covered under the policy. In this connection, reference was made to Condition No. 11 of the policy, which states, “the geographical scope of this policy will be whole of India. The laws of India shall govern the provisions of the policy for the time being in force. The parties hereto unconditionally submit to the jurisdiction of the courts in India”. 8. The above condition of the policy can not be taken to mean that if the insured person goes to some other country and dies there or is murdered, then his legal heirs/nominee under the policy, will not be entitled to receive the amount insured under the policy, even if his/her death is duly established. As stated above, the insurance company has repudiated the claim on the ground that the life assured died in Nepal and the death of the life assured is duly established and it is proved beyond doubt that the dead body of the life assured was found on 13.12.2005. As stated above, the insurance company has repudiated the claim on the ground that the life assured died in Nepal and the death of the life assured is duly established and it is proved beyond doubt that the dead body of the life assured was found on 13.12.2005. Learned counsel for the complainant also filed the copy of the Nepali calendar, which supports the version of the complainant that the dead body of the life assured was found on 13.12.2005. 9. The District Forum has considered all the aspects of the matter and has passed a reasoned order, which does not call for any interference. The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 10. For the reasons aforesaid, appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.