ORDER Per: Justice B.C. Kandpal, President (Oral): This appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 08.10.2010 passed by the District Forum, Chamoli in consumer complaint No. 02 of 2010, whereby the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint against the appellant and directed the appellant to pay the insured amount of Rs. 50,000/- to the respondent No. 1 – complainant together with interest @8% p.a. from the date of filing of the consumer complaint till payment; Rs. 2,000/- towards mental and financial agony and Rs. 2,000/- towards litigation expenses. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that Kunwar Naresh Bahadur Singh, the deceased son of the complainant, was a student of Class – VIII in Government Intermediate College, Gamshali, Chhinka, District Chamoli in the academic session 2007-08. At the time of depositing the fee, sum of Rs. 20/- was deposited towards premium under Student Safety Insurance Policy and under the said policy, in the event of accidental death of the student, sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- was to be paid to the nominee. On 15.02.2008, the son of the complainant went to his school, where he suddenly fell and sustained grievous injuries. He was taken to Government Hospital, Gopeshwar, where the doctors declared him dead. When the insurance amount was not paid to the complainant, the complainant sent a legal notice through his counsel to the opposite parties on 20.08.2009. The complainant completed all the formalities and submitted the required documents, but the insurance amount was not paid to him. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Chamoli. 3. The respondent Nos. 2 to 4 (opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 before the District Forum) filed their written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that the son of the complainant was insured under the policy; that all the formalities regarding payment of the claim were completed and all the papers were sent to the insurance company and that there is no deficiency in service on their part. 4. The appellant filed written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that the consumer complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant has not lodged any claim with them and that there is no deficiency in service on their part. 5. 4. The appellant filed written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that the consumer complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant has not lodged any claim with them 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 08.10.2010 against the appellant in the above terms. 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. 7. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the son of the complainant was insured under Student Safety Insurance Policy issued by the appellant. There is also no dispute with regard to the fact that the insured died during the validity of the period of insurance policy. The insured died on 15.02.2008. There is also no dispute with regard to the fact that the entire formalities regarding payment of the claim have been completed. The appellant has taken the stand that the intimation with regard to the death of the insured was given to it on 26.10.2009, whereas the insured had died on 15.02.2008 and, as such, there has been delay in intimating the death of the insured to the insurance company. 8. The complainant approached the College, where his deceased son was studying, on 20.08.2009 for the payment of the insurance amount, i.e., after a period of more than 18 months’ from the date of death of his son on 15.02.2008. Thus, there has been delay on the part of the complainant in informing the fact regarding death of his son. The complainant might not have been aware about the fact that his son was insured under Student Safety Insurance Policy and that in the event of his accidental death, he was to get the insurance amount. It is important to mention here that the College, where the insured was studying, got the knowledge of his death on the same day, i.e., 15.02.2008 and the College staff took the insured to the hospital, where the doctors declared him dead on account of the injuries sustained by him in an accident. 9. It is important to mention here that the College, where the insured was studying, got the knowledge of his death on the same day, i.e., 15.02.2008 and the College staff took the insured to the hospital, where the doctors declared him dead on account of the injuries sustained by him in an accident. 9. The intimation regarding death of the insured was given to the appellant on 26.10.2009 and the claim was repudiated on the ground that no FIR was lodged and the postmortem of the deceased was also not conducted. As is stated above, there is no dispute with regard to the death of the insured. His death certificate is on record (Paper No. 33), wherein it has been mentioned that the insured died on account of head injury. So far as the delay in giving the intimation to the insurance company is concerned, the insurance company has not been able to prove that as per the policy terms and conditions, in the event of delay intimation regarding the death of the insured, the claim was not payable. So far as non-lodging of the FIR is concerned, no criminal act took place and the insured had not met with a road accident as he fell on his own and hence lodging of FIR was not necessary. So far as the postmortem is concerned, when the death certificate of the insured is on record and the factum regarding his death during the validity of period of insurance has not been disputed, non-conduction of postmortem is immaterial in the given facts and circumstances of the case. The District Forum has considered all these aspects of the matter and has rightly allowed the consumer complaint. 10. So far as the quantum is concerned, from the perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the deceased was insured for sum of Rs. 50,000/- and, therefore, the complainant was held entitled to the said amount, which is justified. However, the interest awarded by the District Forum @8% p.a. is on the higher side and in our view, the same need to be reduced to 6% 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. 2,000/- towards mental agony is liable to be set aside. The litigation expenses of Rs. 2,000/- awarded by the District Forum are perfectly justified. 2,000/- towards mental agony is liable to be set aside. The litigation expenses of Rs. 2,000/- awarded by the District Forum are perfectly justified. 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 08.10.2010 passed by the District Forum is modified and the appellant is directed to pay sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the respondent No. 1 – complainant together with interest @6% p.a. from the date of filing of the consumer complaint till payment and Rs. 2,000/- towards litigation expenses, as awarded by the District Forum. However, the cost of the appeal is made easy.