ORDER P.S. Rana (R) President. —Present appeal is filed under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against order dated 16.09.2016 passed by Learned District Forum Kangra at Dharamshala in consumer complaint No. 30/2016 title Rajesh Hamdard v. Manager Max Life Insurance Company Ltd. Brief facts of Case: 2. Shri Rajesh Hamdard complainant filed complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 pleaded therein that complainant obtained life insurance policy No.854859576 in the name of his minor daughter namely Yema Singh on 26.09.2011 from opposite party. It is pleaded that annual premium of policy was Rs. 20018/- (Twenty thousand eighteen) which was due on 26th September very year. It is further pleaded that complainant has paid first premium at the time of insurance, second premium was paid on 19.09.2012 and third premium was paid on 11.09.2013. It is further pleaded that on 18.09.2013 opposite party sent cheque of Rs. 7369.31/- (Seven thousand three hundred sixty nine rupees & thirty one paise) towards excess premium to complainant. It is pleaded that thereafter opposite party sent another letter dated 10.10.2013 wherein it was stated that due to inadvertent error the cheque to the tune of Rs. 7369.31/-(Seven thousand three hundred sixty nine rupees & thirty one paise) was sent to the complainant. It is pleaded that opposite party requested to refund the cheque to Max Life Insurance Company. It is pleaded that complainant discussed the matter with company''s representative and he was advised to sent cheque to nearest Max Life Insurance office of opposite party. It is further pleaded that matter was also discussed with employee of opposite party Mrs. Sonia Nehal posted in Kangra office and she had also advised complainant to send the cheque along with application to Kangra office. It is pleaded that thereafter complainant sent original cheque of Rs. 7369.31/- (Seven thousand three hundred sixty nine rupees & thirty one paise) to opposite party on 04.11.2013 along with letter. It is further pleaded that complainant received one more letter dated 03.02.2014 issued by Max Life Insurance along with cheque of Rs. 12649.69/- (Twelve thousand six hundred forty nine rupees & sixty nine paise). It is pleaded that said cheque was encashed by complainant. It is further pleaded that thereafter insurance company informed complainant that policy has lapsed and complainant was requested to deposit Rs. 20530/- (Twenty thousand five hundred thirty). 12649.69/- (Twelve thousand six hundred forty nine rupees & sixty nine paise). It is pleaded that said cheque was encashed by complainant. It is further pleaded that thereafter insurance company informed complainant that policy has lapsed and complainant was requested to deposit Rs. 20530/- (Twenty thousand five hundred thirty). It is further pleaded that thereafter complainant personally visited office of opposite party at Kangra and deposit Rs. 32669/- (Thirty two thousand six hundred sixty nine) on 15.09.2014 i.e. Rs. 20020/- (Twenty thousand twenty) as insurance premium and Rs. 12649/- (Twelve thousand six hundred forty nine) as cheque amount. It is further pleaded that complainant lodged complaint in the office of Max Life Insurance and he was informed that policy became inactive since 26.09.2014. It is pleaded that opposite party demanded Rs. 20530.40/- (Twenty thousand five hundred thirty rupees & forty paise) in order to activate insurance policy. It is pleaded that insurance policy was wrongly made inactive since 26.09.2014 despite the fact that premium was already paid up to 26.09.2015. It is pleaded that opposite party committed deficiency in service. It is further pleaded that opposite party also admitted its mistake vide email dated 06.06.2015 through Mrs. Sonia Nehal an employee of opposite party posted at Kangra. It is pleaded that copy of email is Annexure-C10. Complainant sought relief of payment of Rs. 61090/- (sixty one thousand ninety) along with all benefit accrued in the policy. In addition complainant also sought relief of interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of deposit of amount by complainant and in addition complainant also sought relief of Rs. 50000/- (Fifty thousand) as compensation on account of mental agony caused by opposite party. In addition complainant also sought relief of Rs. 10000/-(Ten thousand) as litigation costs. 3. Opposite party did not file version despite opportunity granted by learned District Forum. On 26.07.2016 learned District Forum held that opposite party did not file version despite the fact that opposite party was served in the month of March 2016. Learned District Forum held that three months have lapsed. Learned District Forum struck off the defence of opposite party by order of Forum. Learned District Forum partly allowed the complaint and directed opposite party to cancel the policy in question and refund Rs. Learned District Forum held that three months have lapsed. Learned District Forum struck off the defence of opposite party by order of Forum. Learned District Forum partly allowed the complaint and directed opposite party to cancel the policy in question and refund Rs. 61090/-(Sixty one thousand ninety) to complainant along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till realization. Learned District Forum further held that complainant would be entitled to Rs. 5000/- (Five thousand) towards mental harassment. Learned District Forum further directed that complainant would be entitled to Rs. 3000/- (Three thousand) towards litigation charges. Feeling aggrieved against the order passed by learned District Forum complainant filed the present appeal before State Commission. 4. We have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of parties and we have also perused entire record carefully. 5. Following points arises for determination in present appeal. 1. Whether appeal filed by appellant is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of appeal. 2. Final order. Findings upon point No.1 with reasons: 6. Complainant filed affidavit Ex.CW-1 in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that deponent has obtained life insurance policy No.854859576 in the name of his minor daughter Yema Singh on 26.09.2011 from opposite party under college money back plan effective for 17 years. There is further recital in affidavit that annual premium for the policy was 20018/- (Twenty thousand eighteen) which was payable on 26th September every year. There is recital in affidavit that deponent has paid first premium, second premium and third premium vide Annexures-C1 to C3. There is further recital in affidavit that on 18.09.2013 cheque of Rs. 7369.31/- (Seven thousand three hundred sixty nine rupees & thirty one paise) received from opposite party towards excess premium. There is further recital in affidavit that thereafter another letter dated 10.10.2013 was received by the deponent from opposite party stating therein that due to inadvertent error cheque of Rs. 7369.31/- (Seven thousand three hundred sixty nine rupees & thirty one paise) was sent to deponent and deponent was requested to return the cheque to Max Life Insurance. There is further recital in affidavit that deponent sent back original cheque of Rs. 7369.31/- (Seven thousand three hundred sixty nine rupees & thirty one paise) to the opposite party. 7369.31/- (Seven thousand three hundred sixty nine rupees & thirty one paise) was sent to deponent and deponent was requested to return the cheque to Max Life Insurance. There is further recital in affidavit that deponent sent back original cheque of Rs. 7369.31/- (Seven thousand three hundred sixty nine rupees & thirty one paise) to the opposite party. There is further recital in affidavit that insurance company has wrongly made inactive insurance policy since 26.09.2014 though the premium has already been paid upto 26.09.2015. There is further recital in affidavit that employee of opposite party Mrs. Sonia Nehal also admitted mistake on the part of opposite party vide email letter Annexure-C10. There is further recital in affidavit that deponent has also served legal notice to opposite party. There is further recital in affidavit that opposite party has committed deficiency in service. There is further recital in affidavit that deponent is entitled for the return of amount of premium to the tune of Rs. 61090/- (Sixty one thousand ninety). There is further recital in affidavit that deponent is entitled for a sum of Rs. 50000/- (Fifty thousand) as mental agony and is also entitled to Rs. 10000/-(Ten thousand) as litigation costs. 7. Opposite party did not file any version within 45 days from the date of service and defence of opposite party was struck off by learned District Forum on 26.07.2016. Affidavit filed by complainant remained un-rebutted relating to controversial facts inter se parties. 8. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that inadequate compensation for mental harassment to the tune of Rs. 5000/- (Five thousand) awarded by learned District Forum is party accepted for reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is proved on record that opposite party filed application for settlement before learned District Forum and opposite party offered to refund Rs. 61090/- (Sixty one thousand ninety) total amount paid by complainant minus amount already refunded to the complainant. It is also proved on record that vide Annexure-C10 placed on record the employee of opposite party has admitted that there was no mistake of complainant and there was total mistake of company. In view of fact that employee of company namely Mrs. Sonia Nehal has admitted entire mistake of company State Commission is of the opinion that inadequate compensation has been granted to the complainant by learned District Forum for mental agony. In view of fact that employee of company namely Mrs. Sonia Nehal has admitted entire mistake of company State Commission is of the opinion that inadequate compensation has been granted to the complainant by learned District Forum for mental agony. It is well settled law that no one should be allowed to cause mental suffering without reasonable cause. 9. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that inadequate litigation costs awarded by learned District Forum is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Complainant did not submit detail of litigation costs before learned District Forum and complainant also did not file certificate of Advocate fees before learned District Forum. In view of above stated facts point No.1 is answered partly in yes and partly in no. Point No.2: Final Order s 10. In view of findings upon point No.1 appeal is partly allowed. Amount to the tune of Rs. 5000/- (Five thousand) awarded by learned District Forum for mental harassment is enhanced to Rs. 15000/- (Fifteen thousand). Remaining order of learned District Forum is affirmed. Order of learned District Forum is modified to this extent only. Parties are left to bear their own litigation costs before State Commission. Annexure-C10 will form part and parcel of order. File of learned District Forum along with certified copy of order be sent back forthwith and file of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion forthwith. Certified copy of order be transmitted to parties forthwith free of costs strictly as per rules. Appeal is disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.