ORDER (Per: Justice B.C. Kandpal, President): This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 15.12.2012 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun in consumer complaint No. 170 of 2010, whereby the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint against the appellant – opposite party No. 2 and directed it to pay sum of Rs. 6,93,570/- to the respondent No . 1 – complainant towards the amount of the insurance policy purchased by late Sh. Viresh Kumar, within a period of one month from the date of the order and also to pay Rs. 25,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation expenses. It was also directed that in case the award amount is not paid by the appellant within the stipulated period, then the complainant shall be entitled to interest on the above amount @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the consumer complaint till payment. The consumer complaint was, however, dismissed against the respondent No. 2 – opposite party No. 1 (insurance company). 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that Sh. Viresh Kumar, the deceased son of the complainant – Sh. Laxman Singh Chauhan, was employed with the appellant – Uttarakhand Police as Constable. The deceased, like the other employees of the Uttarakhand Police, had got himself insured through his employer from the opposite party No. 1 – Max New York Life Insurance Company Limited and as per the Circular issued by the Uttarakhand Police, the amount of premium was used to be deducted from the salary of the employee concerned and to be remitted directly to the insurance company. From September, 2009, till the death of the life assured on 22.12.2009, the amount of premium was deducted from his salary. As per the insurance policy, in the event of accidental death of the life assured, sum of Rs. 6,93,570/- was to be paid to the nominee. The complainant lodged the claim for the insurance amount with the insurance company, but the claim was not settled. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Dehradun. 3. 6,93,570/- was to be paid to the nominee. The complainant lodged the claim for the insurance amount with the insurance company, but the claim was not settled. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Dehradun. 3. The appellant filed written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that only 32 employees had purchased the insurance policy from the opposite party No. 1; that the insured person had requested to the department that the amount of premium be deducted from their salary and be remitted to the insurance company; that in the month of August, 2009, the salary of the deceased Sh. Viresh Kumar was stopped on account of absence from office and, as such, the amount of premium was not deducted from his salary; that thereafter the deceased had informed that the amount of premium should not be deducted from his salary and he himself will deposit the premium amount; that since the amount of premium was not deducted from the salary of the deceased and hence the same was not remitted to the insurance company; that in case the amount of insurance has not been paid on account of the policy having lapsed, they can not be blamed for the same and that there is no deficiency in their service. 4. The insurance company also filed written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that the policy in question had lapsed for want of premium in time; that the deceased had purchased the policy under whole life participating plan and the monthly premium of the policy was Rs. 490/-; that on account of irregularity in the payment of premium, the policy was cancelled on 17.01.2010 and an intimation to this effect was duly given; that on 02.02.2010, the insurance company received the death claim of the deceased; that on 26.03.2010, the insurance company had intimated the complainant that the policy purchased by the deceased had lapsed and for renewal of the said policy, the premium was to be deposited by 18.09.2009; that on account of the policy having lapsed, cheque of Rs. 2,050.25/-was sent to the complainant and that there is no deficiency in service on their part. 5. 2,050.25/-was sent to the complainant and that there is no deficiency in service on their part. 5. The District Forum, on an appreciation of the material on record, allowed the consumer complaint vide impugned order dated 15.12.2012 against the appellant in the above manner. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has filed this appeal. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. We have also gone through the written arguments filed by respondent No. 2. 7. From the perusal of the record, it is evident that the claim of the complainant was repudiated by the insurance company vide their letter dated 28.06.2010 on the ground that the policy purchased by the deceased had lapsed on 18.09.2009 on account of non-payment of premium. As per the certificate dated 04.01.2010 issued by the Gram Panchayat, Baar Ganga, the deceased died in a road accident during the course of his employment. The said fact is also proved from the letter issued by the appellant, wherein they have informed the insurance company that the deceased Sh. Viresh Kumar has died in a road accident on 22.12.2009. Vide the said letter, the appellant has also informed the insurance company that from August, 2008 to August, 2009, the amount of Rs. 500/- per month was deducted from the salary of the deceased and the same was remitted to the insurance company through demand draft and a request was made for settlement of the claim by the insurance company. 8. There can not be any dispute with regard to the fact that there is a relationship of principal and agent between the insurance company and the appellant, in view of the fact that the premium amount used to be deducted by the appellant from the salary of the respective employee and thereafter was to be remitted to the insurance company. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that after August, 2009, no amount in respect of premium of the policy held by the deceased – life assured, was remitted by the appellant to the insurance company and on account of which, the policy got lapsed. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that after August, 2009, no amount in respect of premium of the policy held by the deceased – life assured, was remitted by the appellant to the insurance company and on account of which, the policy got lapsed. From the perusal of the impugned order passed by the District Forum, it is evident that before the District Forum, the appellant has submitted the salary record of the deceased from August, 2007 to December, 2009, which shows that from time to time, the amount of premium has been deducted from his salary and the premium amount was deducted from the salary of the deceased till December, 2009, but no premium amount for the month of August, 2009 was deducted by the appellant from the salary of the deceased – life assured and the same was not remitted to the insurance company. As is stated above, the amount of the premium was deducted from the salary of the deceased till December, 2009, but after July, 2009, no premium amount in respect of the policy held by the deceased, was remitted to the insurance company. 9. The case of the appellant is that w.e.f. August, 2009, the deceased had himself requested for non-deduction of premium amount from his salary and, as such, the deduction was not made. There is no evidence on record having been produced by the appellant to show that the deceased had made any request regarding non-deduction of premium from his salary and remittance of the same to the insurer. Thus, it is clear that on account of non-remittance of premium by the appellant to the insurer, the policy got lapsed and hence there has been clear-cut deficiency in service on the part of the appellant and the view to that effect, taken by the District Forum is perfectly justified and can not be faulted with. 10. In view of the above discussion, the District Forum was perfectly justified in allowing the consumer complaint. There is no dispute with regard to the quantum and hence the amount of Rs. 6,93,570/- awarded by the District Forum is fully justified and can not be said to be on the higher side. 10. In view of the above discussion, the District Forum was perfectly justified in allowing the consumer complaint. There is no dispute with regard to the quantum and hence the amount of Rs. 6,93,570/- awarded by the District Forum is fully justified and can not be said to be on the higher side. However, the interest awarded by the District Forum @9% p.a., is on the higher side and in our view, the same need to be reduced to 7% p.a. Since the complainant has been awarded interest, there is no question of separate compensation for mental agony and hence the award of Rs. 25,000/- towards mental agony is liable to be set aside. The litigation expenses of Rs. 10,000/- awarded by the District Forum, are also on the higher side and the same need to be reduced to Rs. 5,000/-. Thus, the appeal succeed partly and is to be allowed accordingly and the order impugned is to be modified. 11. Appeal is partly allowed. Order impugned dated 15.12.2012 passed by the District Forum is modified and the appellant is directed to pay sum of Rs. 6,93,570/- to the respondent No. 1 – complainant together with interest @7% p.a. from the date of filing of the consumer complaint till payment and Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation expenses. However, the cost of the appeal is made easy.