ORDER Justice P.S. Rana (R) President - Present appeal is filed under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against order dated 06.04.2018 passed by Learned District Forum in consumer complaint No. 222/2016 titled Nawabudin & Anr. vs. HDFC Life. Brief facts of Matter: 2. Complainants filed consumer complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 pleaded therein that opposite party received Insurance policies premium from complainants to the tune of Rs. 144000/- (One lac forty four thousand) relating to Insurance policies. It is pleaded that amount of Rs. 50000/- (Fifty thousand) was received by opposite party on 24.10.2013, amount of Rs. 25000/- (Twenty five thousand) was received by opposite party on 30.01.2014, amount of Rs. 44000/- (Forty four thousand) was received by opposite party from complainants on 12.03.2014 and amount of Rs. 25000/- (Twenty five thousand) was received by opposite party from complainants on dated 14.02.2014. It is further pleaded that opposite party returned the entire original principal amount of premium to the tune of Rs. 144000/- (One lac forty four thousand) to the complainants on dated 08.08.2016 and did not pay the interest upon the entire principal amount of premium for the period during which entire premium amount remained with opposite party w.e.f. 24.10.2013 to 08.08.2016. It is further pleaded that opposite party kept the principal amount of premium of Insurance policies for sufficient long period for their benefits and returned the entire principal amount of premium to the complainants without interest and committed deficiency in service. Complainants sought relief of payment of interest @18% per annum on the principal amount of premium paid to opposite party. In addition complainants sought relief of compensation for mental stress and also sought relief of litigation costs. Prayer for acceptance of consumer complaint sought. 3. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite party pleaded therein that District Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of consumer complaint. It is pleaded that complainants have no cause of action against the opposite party. It is further pleaded that complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. It is further pleaded that earlier consumer complaint No. 237 of 2015 was filed by complainants against opposite party which was disposed of on dated 05.07.2016. It is pleaded that complainants have no cause of action against the opposite party. It is further pleaded that complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. It is further pleaded that earlier consumer complaint No. 237 of 2015 was filed by complainants against opposite party which was disposed of on dated 05.07.2016. It is further pleaded that Insurance policies were issued to the complainants and complainants did not apply for cancellation of Insurance policy within free-look period of thirty days as per terms and conditions of the Insurance policy. It is further pleaded that opposite party as goodwill gesture acceded to the request of the complainants for cancellation of Insurance policies and it is further pleaded that entire principal amount to the tune of Rs. 144000/- (One lac forty four thousand) was returned to the complainants on dated 08.08.2016. It is further pleaded that opposite party did not commit any deficiency in service. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint sought. 4. Complainants filed rejoinder and reasserted the allegations mentioned in the complaint. 5. Learned District Forum dismissed the consumer complaint. Feeling aggrieved against order passed by learned District Forum complainants filed present appeal before State Commission. 6. We have heard appellant No.1 and learned Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent and we have also perused entire record carefully. 7. Following points arise for determination in present appeal. 1. Whether appeal filed by complainants is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of appeal and whether opposite party is under legal obligation to pay interest upon entire principal amount of premium to complainants after cancellation of original Insurance policies issued by opposite party ab initio? 2. Final order. Findings upon point No.1 with reasons: 8. Complainant Nawabudin filed affidavit in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that deponent filed earlier consumer complaint No. 237 of 2015 titled Nawabudin vs. HDFC Life before learned District Forum Mandi which was disposed of on dated 05.07.2016 by learned District Forum. There is further recital in affidavit that opposite party has refunded entire principal amount of premium to the tune of Rs. 144000/- (One lac forty four thousand) to the complainants after cancellation of original Insurance policies issued by opposite party. There is further recital in affidavit that opposite party has refunded entire principal amount of premium to the tune of Rs. 144000/- (One lac forty four thousand) to the complainants after cancellation of original Insurance policies issued by opposite party. There is further recital in affidavit that opposite party did not pay the interest qua entire principal amount of premium after cancellation of original Insurance policies issued by opposite party which was kept by the opposite party for a long period. 9. Opposite party filed affidavit of Amit Khanna Associate Manger (Legal) in evidence. There is recital in the affidavit that complainants did not apply for the cancellation of policies within the free look period of thirty days as per terms and conditions of the Insurance policies. There is further recital in affidavit that as a goodwill gesture towards the customers opposite party acceded to the request of cancellation of original Insurance policies. There is further recital in affidavit that complainants are not entitled for interest or compensation as prayed. There is further recital in affidavit that opposite party did not commit any deficiency in service. 10. Submission of Nawabudin that complainants are legally entitled for interest upon the entire principal amount of Rs. 144000/- (One lac forty four thousand) paid to the opposite party as premium after cancellation of original Insurance policies issued by opposite party ab-initio and on this ground appeal filed by complainants be allowed is decided accordingly. It is proved on record that consumer complaint No. 237 of 2015 titled Nawabudin & Anr. vs. HDFC Life was filed before the learned District Forum by complainants and learned District Forum on dated 05.07.2016 disposed of consumer complaint and directed the complainants to file claim with opposite party on or before 10.07.2016. Learned District Forum further ordered that claim would be disposed of/settled within 45 days from the date of order. Learned District Forum further ordered that if opposite party failed to settle the claim of complainants within 45 days or if complainants would not be satisfied or if opposite party would repudiate the claim of complainants then complainants would have the right to file fresh consumer complaint on same cause of action. Opposite party cancelled the original Insurance policies ab-initio and returned the interest free amount of premium to the complainants on dated 08.08.2016. 11. Opposite party cancelled the original Insurance policies ab-initio and returned the interest free amount of premium to the complainants on dated 08.08.2016. 11. Present complaint was filed by the complainants against HDFC through its Branch Manager. Branch Manager did not file his personal affidavit in the present consumer complaint. Affidavit was filed by Amit Khanna Associate Manger (Legal) on behalf of opposite party. Amit Khanna Associate Manger (Legal) is not co-party in the present consumer complaint. It is well settled law that affidavit of authorized person could not be treated as personal affidavit of party. No reason assigned by the opposite party as to why opposite party did not file personal affidavit of Branch Manager on behalf of HDFC because HDFC was impleaded as opposite party in the present consumer complaint through its Branch Manager. It is well settled law that affidavit of authorized person could not be treated as personal affidavit of party as per law. Adverse inference is drawn against the opposite party i.e. HDFC Life for non-filing personal affidavit of Branch Manager in the present consumer complaint. See AIR 1999 SC 1441 Vidhyadhar vs. Mankik Rao. See AIR 1999 SC 1341 Iswar Bhai C. Patel vs. Harihar Bahera . 12. State Commission is of the opinion that after cancellation of Insurance policies ab-initio opposite party was under legal obligation to refund the entire premium amount along with interest to the complainants in ab-initio manner. After cancellation of Insurance policies ab-initio opposite party has no legal right to retain interest of original premium amount qua period when original premium amount remained in personal custody of opposite party. There is no evidence on record that any agreement was executed inter se parties that original premium amount would be returned to complainants by opposite party free of interest. There is no document placed on record by opposite party in order to prove that complainants have agreed to receive the entire original principal amount of premium on interest free basis. There is no evidence on record in order to prove that complainants have received amount to the tune of Rs. 144000/- (One lac forty four thousand) as full and final settlement. No receipt of full and final settlement signed by complainants placed on record by opposite party. It is well settled law that when two views are possible then view favourable to the consumer should be adopted by the Consumer Forum. 144000/- (One lac forty four thousand) as full and final settlement. No receipt of full and final settlement signed by complainants placed on record by opposite party. It is well settled law that when two views are possible then view favourable to the consumer should be adopted by the Consumer Forum. See (2018) 1 CLT 468 NC titled Union of India through GM Western Railway vs. Smt. Vinaya Vilas Sawant. In the present matter State Commission has adopted the view favourable to the consumer because HDFC was impleaded as party in present consumer complaint through Branch Manager and Branch Manager did not file his personal affidavit in order to refute the facts mentioned by complainants in the affidavit placed on record. 13. Submission of complainants that complainants are legally entitled for compensation for mental agony and harassment is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that complainants have filed subsequent consumer complaint as per permission given by learned District Forum in consumer complaint No. 237 of 2015 decided on dated 05.07.2016 and State Commission is of the opinion that complainants are legally entitled for reasonable compensation for mental agony and harassment from opposite party. 14. Submission of complainants that complainants are legally entitled for ligation costs from the opposite party is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that complainants have engaged Ld. Advocate before learned District Forum and have also incurred litigation expenses. State Commission is of the opinion that complainants are legally entitled for reasonable litigation costs from the opposite party. 15. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party that order of learned District Forum is in accordance with law and in accordance with proved facts and same be affirmed and appeal filed by complainants be dismissed is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that in the ends of justice and on the principles of natural justice order of learned District Forum warrants interference by State Commission because surrender clause was not invoked by the opposite party at the time of returning entire principal premium amount to the complainants. HDFC did not place on record any receipt signed by complainants relating to full and final settlement inter se the parties. Even Branch Manager HDFC did not file his personal affidavit and it is held that affidavit filed by Amit Khanna is based on derived knowledge. 16. HDFC did not place on record any receipt signed by complainants relating to full and final settlement inter se the parties. Even Branch Manager HDFC did not file his personal affidavit and it is held that affidavit filed by Amit Khanna is based on derived knowledge. 16. It is wells settled law that proceedings under Consumer Protection Act 1986 are quasi-judicial proceedings and State Commission is of the opinion that onus was upon the HDFC to prove that complainants have received the entire premium amount of Rs. 144000/- (One lac forty four thousand) as full and final settlement free of premium amount interest after cancellation of original Insurance policies by opposite party ab-initio. See ( 2018) 2 CPJ 89 Calcutta M/s. Keso Ram Industries Limited vs. Allahabad Bank . See (1996) 2 CPC 524 Madras H.C. Manager Indian Bank & Ors. vs. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum . Plea of HDFC that complainants have received amount of Rs. 144000/- (One lac forty four thousand) as full and final settlement is defeated on the concept of ipse-dixit (An assertion made without proof). Point No.1 is decided accordingly. Point No. 2: Final Order 17. In view of findings upon point No.1 above appeal is partly allowed and order of learned District Forum is set aside. It is ordered that opposite party shall pay interest to the complainants upon principal premium amount of Rs. 144000/- (One lac forty four thousand) @ 9% per annum from the dates of payment of premium to the opposite party till the date original principal premium amount was kept by the opposite party within thirty days from the date of receipt of copy of order. 18. It is further ordered that in addition opposite party shall pay compensation to the complainants for mental harassment and agony to the tune of Rs. 5000/- (Five thousand). It is further ordered that in addition opposite party shall pay litigation costs to the complainants to the tune of Rs. 5000/- (Five thousand). Order of learned District Forum is modified accordingly. 19. 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.