Mr. Justice B.S. Yadav, Member—This revision petition has been filed by the opposite party against the order dated 1.1.95 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tamil Nadu (for short State Commission) in AP No. 836/94 by which it accepted the appeal filed by the complainant, Mr. P. Ramaraj (respondent herein) and set aside the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Madurai passed in O.P. No. 426/93. The State Commission directed the opposite party i.e. Insurance Company to pay to the complainant Rs. 35,000/-, amount of two insurance policies, one Janta Personal Accident Policy for Rs. 25,000/- and other one Gramin Accident Policy for Rs. 10,000/- with interest thereon @ 12% from the date of the claim till payment. It may be mentioned here that the District Forum had dismissed the complaint of the complainant and asked him to have his case decided by a Civil Court as there were mixed questions of law and facts and such questions ought to be decided only by Civil Courts.

2. The parties will be referred to by their nomenclature in the complaint.

3. The complainant in his complaint filed before the District Forum has alleged that he was working as a driver for several years, under one Mr. Krishnamurthy. The complainant had on his own accord taken above referred two policies to cover the risk of injuries in the course of his employment for the period from 8.1.92 to 7.1.93. The policies were renewed by payment of premium on 12.1.93 for the period from 12.1.93 to 11.1.94 for a sum of Rs. 35,000/-. On 12.1.93 the lorry driven by the complainant met with an accident and he suffered multiple grievous injuries including fracture. The four fingers of the right hand had to be amputed, the thumb was also not functioning properly. Thus according to the complainant he is permanently disabled and therefore, under the policy conditions he is entitled to Rs. 35,000/- as compensation for permanent disability under the policies. The complainant submitted the claim, alongwith documents to the Insurance Company. However, the Insurance Company repudiated the claim on the ground that at the time of accident the risk was not covered.

4. The opposite party Insurance Company contended that the premium for the renewed policies was received in the office only at 2.30 p.m. on 12.1.93, while the accident had taken place at 10.00 a.m. on that day and since premium has been received after the accident, there was no policy at the time of the accident. Hence repudiation of the claim in the present circumstances does not amount to deficiency in service.

5. Relying upon of the order of the Apex Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Ram Dayal and Ors., II (1990) ACC 90 (SC)=1990 (II) ACJ 545, the State Commission has held that as the premium was paid on 12.1.93 the policy got renewed on the commencement of the day i.e. from the midnight of 11/12.1.93. It was not disputed before the State Commission that the complainant has suffered serious grievous injuries in the accident including fracture of the right hand. In the course of his treatment the four fingers of his right hand have been amputed leaving the thumb which is also not functioning properly. The State Commission passed the impugned order awarding the relief, noticed above, to the complainant. Feeling aggrieved, the Insurance Company has filed this revision petition.

6. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. We are of the opinion that the order of the State Commission has to be maintained. Admittedly in the present case the premium for renewal of the policies had been paid by the complainant on 12.1.93 and the accident has also took place on the same day in which the complainant has suffered the injuries. In the memorandum of revision petition the petitioner has stated that the carbon copies of the policies were filed before the District Forum as Exhibits B1 and B2. Record of the District Forum was called. Perusal of