National Consumer Disputes Redressal
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Triveni Overseas Ltd. And Sas Aqua ... on 25 October, 2002
ORDER
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (President)
1. These two cross appeals, one filed by the New India Assurance Company Ltd., insurer (FA 57/01) and other by the complainant (FA 119/2001), arise out of the same judgment dated 31.1.2001 of the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. These have been heard along with Revision Petition No.1140/2001 filed by the New India Assurance Company Ltd. against the order dated 9.4.2001 also of the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. These were heard together since a common question of law was raised by the parties.
2. First Appeal No.119/01 filed by the complainant is barred by 47 days. When we examined the application seeking condonation of delay we find that appeal was filed after the complainant became aware of the appeal filed by the insurer before the National Commission. There is no sufficient cause shown to condone the delay. In normal circumstances we would have dismissed this appeal but in view of the final order which we proposes to make in the appeal filed by the insurer (FA No.57/01) we would rather hold that the appeal filed by the complainant also stands disposed of. Accordingly delay of 47 days in filing is condoned.
3. Complainant in the appeals is Triveni Overseas Ltd. and that in revision Petition SAS Aqua Culture Exports Pvt. Ltd. Both these cases pertains to insurance cover taken for their project called "Brackish water prawns cultivation". The question which has been raised is whether there was a concluded contract of insurance in the circumstances of each of these two, though different, cases. While Insurance Company contends that there was no concluded contract, complainant says otherwise.
4. Insurance Company came up with a scheme for "Brackish water prawns"
insurance which we reproduce as under:
"THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
Divisional Office:
II Floor Srinath Complex Cotton Market, Hubli-580 029.
Ref: RID DEV Dear Sir/s, Re: Salient features of Brackish Water Prawn Insurance We would like to inform you that we have recently introduced insurance scheme for Brackish water prawns for the benefit of the farmers, the salient features of which are as given here-below:
APPLICABILITY: This scheme is applicable to all brackish water prawns, whether cultivated intensively or semi intensively or extensively.
SCOPE OF COVER: Total loss of prawns due to disease of accident (60% of the loss will be construed at total loss). Accident also includes:
a] Summer Kill b] Pollution, poisoning, Riot, & strike and malicious damage c] Earthquake, explosion and implosion d] Storm, tempest, Cyclone, flood, inundation (Flood and Inundation excludes normal tides) etc. e] Air Craft either impact or damage.
f] Shell disease, vibriosis etc. PREMIUM: 2.40%. The Premium is calculated on the peak value of the valuation payable.
SUM INSURED: The sum insured depends upon the number of large under value or cost of large for every 1000 larvae.
EXCLUSION:
a] Malicious injury, negligence b] Improper management and rough handling c] Partial loss of any kind d] (sic) of any person burglary and theft c] Predator and competitions and other dangerous insects, chemical status of water etc. SPECIAL CONDITIONS: The insured is required to maintain all records of daily or monthly basis relating to different stages of prawns stocked in various tanks and ponds
2. Other maintenance procedure likes effective liming, manuring, deweeding etc.,
3. Strong and sufficient bunds, proper regulation of water movements.
4. Regular water analysis, proper and safe stocking, etc., are required.
5. Either 24 hours watchman should be present near the pond or suitable measures should be taken to protect the pond for outsiders.
6. Other normal conceptions of the prawns are to be followed.
We also have insurance scheme for Bunds and the premium rate is 2% for flood prone area and 1% for an flood prone area.
In this connection, we are enclosing herewith proposals forms for 'Prawn' insurance and 'Bund' insurance.
We hope, you will give us opportunity to discuss further to finalise the above insurance scheme.
Thanking you, Yours faithfully, Sd/-
[Divisional Manager]"
5. When this scheme was floated by the Insurance Company, insurance cover was taken by Triveni Overs Ltd. and SAS Aqua Culture Exports Pvt. Ltd. It is the case of the Insurance Company that prawns insurance was only for accidental cover for which also no concluded contract came into being. The complainants say that cover was also for the diseases. We first take up the case of Triveni Overseas. On 25.5.94 Insurance Company addressed the following letter to Triveni Overseas:
"700/RID/Prawns/95 M/s. Triveni Overseas Ltd., Shanbag House, P.O.Aghanashini, Kumta District Uttar Kannada Dear Sir, SHRIMP/PRAWN INSURANCE SCHEME We would like to introduce ourselves as the leading subsidiary of General Insurance Corpn. Of India.
We learn that you are one of the progressive Shrimp farmer/Aqua cultural from a list supplied by MPEDA.
Recently we have come out with a 'Brackish water Prawn Insurance Scheme. This scheme covers death of Prawns due to any disease or any accident and compensation/claim is settled on the input cost basis.
We request you to give us an opportunity to meet you in person and explain the insurance Scheme in detail.
We met you on the date, time and place specified. A line of reply is highly appreciated.
Thanking you, Yours faithfully, Sd/-0 Divisional Manager".
6. In pursuance thereto an agent of the Insurance Company met the complainant and obtained three cheques for varying amount and different dates totalling Rs. 59,094/- towards premium for comprehensive insurance of the prawns. It is stated that the premium was calculated on the basis to cover not only the accident but also the diseases and the sum assured was Rs. 18,55,000/- though the premium amount would cover the sum assured even to the extent of Rs. 23,45,000/-. Two cheques towards premium were issued on 23.12.95 and 25.12.95 and were encashed by the Insurance Company on 26.12.95. Having received amounts, receipts were issued afterwards in which it was mentioned 'subject to approval from RO/DO'. Third cheque was issued on 13.1.96 and Insurance Company enchased the same on 18.1.96 and on the receipt respecting this amount endorsement was 'only accident cover'. We may note down the details of the dates of the cheque, premium amount and the sum assured.
7. Admittedly, no policy was issued till the claims for the loss suffered were lodged by the complainant with the Insurance Company. Complainant had started the project of prawns on various dates commencing from November 95 to January 96. It was early January, 1996 that the complainant noticed that the prawns reared by it had been attacked by viral diseases in two ponds. Insurance Company was informed and a surveyor by the name Mr. Diwakar was deputed to assess the damage. It was, thereafter that the complainant carried out the harvesting of these two ponds on 28.1.96. By 30.1.96 complainant noticed that all the ponds had been attacked by the killer disease and it informed the Insurance Company. Thereafter complainant carried out harvesting of the ponds. It is the case of the complainant that harvesting was done in the presence of the surveyor of the Insurance Company. Samples of the deceased prawns were sent to the College of Fisheries, University of Agricultural Science, Mangalore for analysis and report. It was confirmed that the prawns had died on account of viral white spot disease which is called "Shell" disease and it was covered under the circular issued by the Insurance Company which we have already reproduced above. Since the oral request of the complainant to the Insurance Company for issue of necessary claim forms did not materialise a communication was sent for the purpose on 6.3.96. It was acknowledged by the Insurance Company. However, on 12.3.96 a letter was written by the Divisional Manager of the Insurance Company to the complainant that the receipts for having received the premium were issued subject to accidental cover only. Insurance Company volunteered to refund the premium so received. Insurance Company on 29.3.96 wrote to the complainant that its Divisional Office, Bangalore had agreed to accidental cover only and wanted acceptance of the complainant. This letter reads as under:
"M/s. Triveni Overseas Ltd.
Masalesal, PO Aghanashini KUMTA Dear Sir, Re: Brackish Water Prawn Insurance With reference to the above we would like to inform you that our R.O. Bangalore had agreed to cover Accidental Cover only. Kindly inform us your acceptance for the same.
Thanking you, Yours faithfully, Sd/- Branch Manager"
8. On the same date itself Insurance Company wrote to the State Bank of India, from where financial assistance had been obtained by the complainant, offering refund of the premium in respect of the first two receipts. This letter we again quote:
"State Bank of India Kumta Branch' KUMTA Sir, Re: Cancellation of risk of Prawn Insurance A/c. M/s. Triveni Overseas Ltd., Masalesal As per our HO/RO instructions we had approached the above insurance only for Accidental Cover. But the insured has not agreed to accept the same. Hence we are refunding the premium collected of M/s. Triveni Overseas for Rs. 39564/- vide Receipt No. 666759 and 666760 dated 26.12.95 We are sending herewith voucher in duplicate. Kindly send the duly signed vouchers which will enable us to issue the cheque. Further we are yet to receive the voucher of the same party which was sent to you on 8.2.96.
Yours faithfully, Sd/- Branch Manager CC to:
M/s. Triveni Obverseas Ltd.
Masalesal."
9. On 10.4.96 State Bank of India informed the Insurance Company that complainant was not willing to withdraw the insurance cover which had been obtained after the premium had been calculated for comprehensive cover including 'diseases'. Complainant requested the State Bank of India to return the cheques to the Insurance Company. On 4.7.96 complainant sent a legal notice to the Insurance Company to which reply was received by letter dated 9.7.96. This letter of the Insurance Company we again reproduce.
"Cap. K.S. Hegde Managing Director M/s. Triveni Overseas Ltd.
Triveni House PO Aghanashini 581351 KUMTA (sic) Uttar Kannada Dist.
Dear Sir, Re: Your Prawn Insurance claim This has reference to your letter of 6.3.96 addressed to our Karwar Branch and copy marked to our Head Office, Bombay and also your financiers State Bank of India letter dated 9.5.96 marked to similar addressed as above. Kindly refer our letter dated 12.3.96 wherein we have clarified our position as to why we have taken steps to refund the premium amount.
However, we would like to state that the premium receipt issued to you was subjects to RO/HO approval, meaning that though premium received by the Company, the risk will commence only after receipt of approval from RO/HO and till such time we are not on risk and hence policy will not be issued. Mere payment of premium and submission of proposal does not mean that the Company is on risk. The risk acceptance will be duly communicated by way of issuance of policy.
Since our HO/RO did not accept your proposal. We have refunded the premium fully. In view of the above, since we were not on risk, there is no question of admissibility of your claim.
We hope we have clarified our position.
Thanking you, Yours faithfully, Sd/- Divisional Manager"
10. Before we proceed further we would also like to refer a letter dated 8.2.96 from the Insurance Company to the State Bank of India relating to cancellation of risk of prawns/bunds. This letter is as under:
"8th February, 1996 "To The Branch Manager, State Bank of India KUMTA Sir, Re: Cancellation of risk of Prawn/Bund As per our HO/RO instruction only Accidental cover is given for Preawn/Bund insurance. Hence we are refunding the premium collected of the following parties.
1. S.A.S. Aqua Culture & Exports Rt. no. 646788/18.1.96 for Rs. 26,964/-
2. Triveni Overseas Ltd., Rt. no. 646789/18.1.96 for Rs. 19530/-
3. Sri. Ganapati Shrimp Farm Rt. no. 646790/18.1.96 to Rs. 1677/-
4. Sri. Ganpati Shrimp Farm Rt. no. 646791/18.1.96 for Rs. 525/-
We are sending herewith vouchers in duplicate, kindly send them duly signed which will enable us to issue the cheque.
Thankyou you, Yours faithfully, Sd/-
Branch manager.
c.c.to:
D.O. Dharwad: for information."
11. Interestingly on this letter is a rubber stamp showing the receipt of this letter by the Insurance Company, Hubli Divisional Office on 13.6.96. There is also a letter dated 12.3.96 from the Divisional Office of the Insurance Company to Triveni Overseas stating that receipt was issued subject to 'accidental cover only' and that subsequently Branch Office of the Insurance, which had taken the premium amount had initiated steps for refund of premium once the that Divisional Office had been prohibited by the Head Office not to accept prawn insurance.
12. Breeding period of prawn is 90 days. After getting the payment of premium amount it is for the first time that on 29.3.96 complainant was informed by the Insurance Company that it had agreed to 'accidental cover only' on which point acceptance of the complainant was sought, which he declined.
13. The question that arises for consideration is if there was concluded contract of measure. State Commission on appreciation of facts of the case held that it was so and was thus of the view that Insurance Company was deficient in service. On the question of liability State Commission said that none of the parties had come up with any data of the loss suffered by the complainant. It then arrived at a figure of Rs. 10.00 lakhs on the basis of 'preponderance of probabilities' which according to the State Commission would meet the ends of justice. State Commission, therefore, allowed by the complaint and directed the Insurance Company to pay Rs. 10.00 lakhs with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of complaint till payment, to the complainant. A sum of Rs. 5,000/- was also awarded as costs.
14. Insurance Company has filed this appeal challenging the judgment both on the question of validity of the contract and quantum of compensation arrived at by the State Commission. Complainant in its appeal seeks enhancement of compensation.
15. When we analysed the three receipts issued by the Insurance Company, we find that on first two receipts it is mentioned that amount had been accepted 'subject to approval of RO/DO. The third receipt shows that it is for the 'accidental cover only'. We think the first set of two receipts and the third have to be considered separately. First two receipts were issued after the encashment of cheques by the Insurance Company on 26.12.95 providing for insurance cover for Rs. 10,70,000/- of the first receipt and Rs. 5.00 lakhs for the second receipt, which was calculated @ 2.4% of peak input cost and 5% service tax. Premium thus received, included, cover of diseases as well. The notes which were exchanged between the Branch Office of the Insurance company and its Regional Office/Head Office, of which complainant had no information, is certainly of no concern to us as well. It is only on 23.3.96 that complainant is informed that the insurance cover is only for accidental cover. Third receipt no doubt shows that the premium amount was collected for accidental cover only'. But this is not so for the first two receipts. It is the contention of the Insurance Company that since no policy was issued there could not be any insurance cover and there could not be any concluded contract. We do not think that is the correct position of law that every thing depends upon the issue of policy. When a contract has been concluded, be it an insurance or any other contract, would depend upon the facts of each case and it is certainly not the law that unless policy is issued there is no valid insurance contract. The conduct of the party may also point towards the conclusion of the contract. For 90 days which is the life span of prawn and after having collected the premium Insurance Company keeps quiet and comes up with the plea of accidental cover only after prawns were attacked by killer disease. This conduct of the Insurance Company also deprived the complainant to go to any other Insurance Company for the insurance cover. We may refer to two decisions of the Supreme Court one in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Raja Vasireddy Komalavalli Kamba and Ors. - (1984) 2 SCC 719 and the other in the case of General Assurance Society Ltd. v. Chandmull Jain and Anr. - AIR 1966 SC 1644 (Constitution Bench).
16. In the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) v. Raja Vasireddy Komalavalli Kamba and Ors. the question before the Supreme Court was if in the circumstances of the case before it there was a concluded contract of insurance between the parties. A proposal was given to the LIC by the deceased on 27.12.1960 for a proposal for life insurance for Rs. 50,000/-. Two cheques amounting to Rs. 300/- and 200/- were given as premium. One cheque was encashed on 29.12.1960 and other only on 11.1.1961, as on the first attempt the second cheque was returned dishonoured. On 12.1.1961 the proposer died. His widow lodged a claim on 16.1.1961 which was repudiated on 28.1.1961. It was the submission of the diseased's wife that the payment and receipt of the first premium would amount to acceptance of the proposal and as the amount towards the premium had been received by LIC a day before the death of the proposer there was a contract of insurance which had come into being. Contention of LIC, however, was that the proposal had not been accepted by the time of the death of the proposer and as such there was no concluded insurance contract between the deceased and the LIC. It was further submitted by LIC that on the death of the deceased the amounts covering the two cheques were lying in the deposit and in the suspense account of the LIC and were not adjusted towards the premium since the proposal was not considered, the terms of acceptance were not fixed and the premium amount required for the proposal was not concluded. Reference was also made to Life Insurance Corporation of India Standing Order, 1960 ("Financial Powers) under Chaptmer III, the power to underwrite a policy of insurance for over Rs. 50,000/- lay with the Divisional Manager. By the time the proposer died the Divisional Manager had not accepted the proposal. Supreme Court held that mere receipt and retention of premium until after the death of the proposer or the mere preparation of the policy document was not acceptance. Acceptance must be signified by some act or acts agreed to by the parties or from which the law raises a presumption of acceptance. Thus when in the present case premium has been accepted by the Insurance Company calculated on the all risk basis and there is no communication till after 3 months of gestation period of prawns which premium is kept all this period a presumption arises of acceptance of proposal of insurance.
17. Then in the case of General Assurance Society Ltd. v. Chandmull Jain and Anr., it was Insurance Company which was in appeal before the Supreme Court. Respondent - insured had given a proposal for insurance of its property worth Rs. 65,000/- against fire and including loss or damage by cyclone, flood and/or change of course of the river or crosion of river, land slides and subsidence. The appellant-Insurance Company had accepted the proposals which was submitted on 2.6.1950 and the insurance cover was for the period from 3.6.50 to 2.6.51. With the letter of acceptance a cover note was enclosed. In the cover note it was mentioned that the property was held insured against damage by fire, subject to the terms of the applicants proposal and the use and conditions of the Insurance Company's policies. On 6.7.1950, however the Insurance Company wrote to the insured cancelling the risk from 6.7.1950. This was disputed by the insured who said that the risk had already 'commenced' and 'taken place' and therefore, there could not be any cancellation as there was no time left for the insured to take precautionary measures by reinsuring. Insurance Co. relied on condition 10 of the fire policy according to which it could cancel the policy at any time. This condition reads as under:
"10. This insurance may be terminated at any time at the request to the Insured, in which case the Society will retain the customary short period rate for the time the policy has been in force. This insurance may also at any time be terminated at the option of the Society, on notice to that effect being given to the Insured, in which case the Society shall be liable to repay on demand a ratable proportion of the premium for the unexpired terms from the date of the cancelment".
18. Court held that Insurance Company was within its right to cancel the policy in view of condition of the policy. Supreme Court examined the whole controversy in depth. We may, however, quote from para 11 and 20 of the judgment as under:
"11. A contract of insurance is a species of commercial transactions and there is a well-established commercial practice to send cover notes even prior to the completion of a proper proposal or while the proposal is being considered or a policy is in preparation for delivery. A cover note is a temporary and limited agreement. It may be self-contained or it may incorporate by reference the terms and conditions of the future policy. When the cover note incorporates the policy in this manner, it does not have to recite the terms and conditions, but merely to refer to a particular standard policy. If the proposal is for a standard policy and the cover note refers to it, the assured is taken to have accepted the terms of that policy. The reference to the policy and its terms and conditions may be expressed in the proposal or the cover note or even in the letter of acceptance including the cover note.' The incorporation of the terms and conditions of the policy may also arise from a combination of references in two or more documents passing between the parties. Documents like the proposal, cover note and the policy are commercial documents and to interpret them commercial habits and practice cannot altogether be ignored. During the time the cover note operates, the relations of the parties are governed by its terms and conditions, if any but more usually by the terms and conditions of the policy bargained for and to be issued. When this happens the terms of the policy are incipient but after the period of temporary cover, the relations are government only by the terms and conditions of the policy unless insurance is declined in the meantime. Delay in issuing the policy makes no difference. The relations even then are governed by the future policy if the cover note give sufficient indication that it would be so. In other respects there is no difference between a contract of insurance and any other contract except that in a contract of insurance there is a requirement of uberima fides, i.e., good faith on the part of the assured and the contract is likely to be construed contra proferentem that is against the company in case of ambiguity or doubt. A contract is formed when there is an unqualified acceptance of the proposal. Acceptance may be expressed in writing or it may even be implied if the insurer accepts the premium and retains it. In the case of the assured, a positive act on his part by which he recognises or seeks to enforce the policy amounts to an affirmation of it..."
19. It was contended that this cancellation was ineffective, because risk had already commenced and the policy could not be cancelled after the liability of the company began. As a general proposition, this is perfectly right. Condition 10 is intended to cancel the risk but not to avoid liability for loss which has taken place or to avoid risk which is already turning into loss. It is obvious that a fire policy cannot be cancelled after the house has caught fire. But it is equally clear that unless the risk has already commenced or has become so imminent that it must inevitably take place, such a clause can be invoked. If property is insured against flood, it is not open to the insurance company to send couriers on motor cycles ahead of the floods to cancel the policy. But if it is thought that a particular dam was not quite safe, the insurance company will be entitled to cancel the policy against flood before the dam has actually started to crumble or has crumbled. Cancellation is reasonably possible before the liability under the policy has commenced or has become inevitable and it is a question of fact in each case whether the cancellation is legitimate or illegitimate.
20. When we apply the principle as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of General Assurance Society Ltd. v. Chandmull Jain and Anr. and as contained in para 20 Insurance Company could not have put the condition that the policy was for accidental cover only. In the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Raja Vasireddy Komallavalli Kamba and Ors. Supreme Court has laid that whether the final acceptance is that of the assured or insurer would depend simply on the way in which negotiations for insurance had progressed.
21. Circumstances of the case clearly show that premium was accepted for comprehensive insurance including diseases and after disease was noticed in the prawns. Insurance Company had even deputed its surveyor to asses damage. Harvesting of the prawns was done only after damage had been assessed. When the oral request of the complainant for supply of claim forms failed and a letter was written on 6.3.96, it is thereafter in late March, complainant was informed that it had agreed to 'accidental cover only'. Only on the third receipt issued in January, 96 there is an endorsement that it is for accidental cover only but this is not so on the first two receipts. As we have noticed above, for 90 days which would the period of insurance cover complainant would not have been informed of the decision of the Regional Officer or Head Office and rather surveyor had come to assess the damage. For the first two receipts of premium we agree with the State Commission that there was a concluded contract of insurance which covered the disease with which prawns suffered. Law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid two decisions certainly favours the complainant.
22. As regards third receipt when the endorsement clearly shows that it is for accidental cover it is difficult to agree with the decisions of the State Commission as to how it could be said that the insurance would cover disease as well though it could be that the premium was calculated on comprehensive basis which include accident or disease. When the wording is clear that the premium has been accepted for accidental cover only one could not fall back on the calculation of the insurance premium to get the result otherwise. Moreover, in the letter dated 8.2.96 from Insurance Company to the State Bank of India the premium amount sought to be returned is of the third receipt only i.e. for Rs. 19,530/-. This also rather strengthen the case in respect of the two receipts as produced by the complainant. By this date when third receipt was issued it had come to the notice of the Insurance Company that disease had affected the prawn in two ponds. We would, therefore, hold that as regards the third receipt there could not no concluded contract of insurance.
23. As regards quantum we are unable to appreciate as to who figure of Rs. 10.00 lakhs arrived at without there being any evidence produced by either of the parties. The least complainant could have produced was its books of accounts and the record of the Bank from where financial assistance was obtained. It is necessary for the complainant to produce evidence to prove its loss. The amount of insurance like this could not have been awarded by the State Commission merely on presumptions or 'preponderance of probabilities'. There must be something for us to uphold the order of the State Commission on the question of quantum as we are not versed with the harvesting of prawns, the market value of full grown prawn at a particular place and the amount spent by the complainant in the project.
24. We, therefore, set aside the order of the State Commission on the question of quantum as arrived at and would remand the matter to it for fresh decision after giving an opportunity to the parties to produce evidence which could be on the basis of affidavits.
Revision Petition No. 1140/2001:
25. In the case a cheque for insurance was issued on 31.1.96 and the period of insurance was supposedly for 18.1.96 to 17.6.96. Against it was the stand of the Insurance Company that the insurance cover was only for accidental risk. This was not accepted by the District Forum who on the basis of evidence on record held as under:
"We have gone through the said receipt and there is no such endorsement or recital to the effect that the risk covered is only accidental risk. Of course, certain words in the receipts appears to have been scored off. But, whether the said words were scored off at the time of issuing the receipt or after it was issued to the complainant, could have been ascertained if the opposite party has produced the carbon copy of the receipt. The contention of the opposite party that only accidental cover was intended while accepting the premium appears to be inherently improbable. Because Ex.C.10 the policy taken by the complainant from another Insurance Company for earlier period shows that insurance was taken covering the diseases also. When that is the case, it is improbable that the complainant would agree for a contract covering accidental risk only."
26. State Commission also commented on the letter dated 8.2.96 of the Insurance Company to the State bank of India which we have reproduced while discussing the appeals which letter also mentions about the SAS Aqua culture Exports. District Forum observed that from this letter it was evident that insurance cover was extended to diseases also but sought to be restricted to accidental cover. District Forum said that if the premium had been accepted only for accidental cover there was no occasion to writ such a letter to refund the premium. On the question of quantum of compensation awarded District Forum noticed that the complainant had produced receipt showing quantity and the price of prawns seeds purchased and probable weight of the prawns on the date of occurrence and also a certificate obtained from the competent department as to the cause of mortality and that all these facts were not disputed by the Insurance Company District Forum therefore, awarded compensation of Rs. 4,41,787/- with interest @ 12% per annum from 24.2.96 till payment. A sum of Rs. 1000/- was also awarded as cost.
27. State Commission on appeal filed by the Insurance company upheld the order of the District Forum both on the question of law as well as on facts. We have considered the question of law as in the appeals and we hold that there was a concluded contract of insurance. This revision petition fails and it is dismissed.