The court established that double benefit of compensation and interest cannot be awarded to a consumer by a redressal agency established under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Mr. Justice Lokeshwar Prasad, President—The present appeal, filed by the appellant under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), is directed against order dated 9th April, 2003, passed by District Forum, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi, in Complaint Case No. TC/1267/98 entitled Shri Rajpal Mahana v. National Insurance Company Ltd.

2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the above mentioned appeal, lie in a narrow compass. The appellant, Shri Rajpal Mahana, had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act, before the District Forum, averring therein that the appellant had taken a Household Insurance Policy from the respondent on 12th March, 1993 in respect of House No. B-45, Vivek Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi, for Rs. 1,50,000/-, for the period from 12th March, 1993 to 11th March, 1994. It was stated that on 31st May, 1993 the appellant, along with his wife, left the above said premises to meet his in-laws and when on the morning of 2nd June, 1993 the wife of the appellant reached the house, she found that the house had been ransacked completely. The appellant preferred a claim under the above mentioned Policy and the respondent on receipt of intimation, appointed M/s. J & N Sharma & Co., to survey and to assess the loss. Mr. Sharma of M/s. J & N Sharma & Co., visited the house of the appellant on 4th June, 1993. It was stated by the appellant that the respondent, vide letter dated 17th June, 1994 had rejected the claim of the appellant for Rs. 74,750/-. In the complaint, filed by the appellant, it was prayed that the appellant be given a compensation of Rs. 74,750/-, together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 2nd June, 1993 till payment. The appellant had also claimed damages to the extent of Rs. 5,000/- and cost of litigation amounting to Rs. 1,000/-.

3. The claim of the appellant before the District Forum was resisted by the respondent and in the reply/written version, filed on behalf of the respondent, it was stated that the appellant had not approached the District Forum with clean hands and had not disclosed full facts at the time of taking the Insurance Policy. It was stated that the appellant never resided at the given premises and as such was guilty of suppressing material facts. It was stated that the premises in question belonged to the brother of the insured as per the report of the Surveyor, dated 8th June, 1994, and not to the appellant. It was stated that the appellant had also not replied to the various communications, which were written to the appellant by M/s. J & N Sharma and Co. and also failed to furnish the relevant documents and as such the claim preferred by the appellant was rejected.

4. The learned District Forum, vide impugned order, has held that there was ‘deficiency in service’ on the part of the respondent and on the basis of the above finding, has directed the respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 74,750/-, towards loss of articles which were insured with the respondent. The learned District Forum has also directed the respondent to pay a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- for harassment and mental agony, together with a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as cost of litigation.

5. Not feeling satisfied with the relief granted by the District Forum, the appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 15 of the Act.

6. We have heard the Authorised Representative of the appellant at length on the question of admission of the present appeal and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record. During the course of arguments, the only contention which has been advanced by the Authorised Representative of the appellant is that though the appellant had claimed interest, but no interest on the amount of Rs. 74,750/- has been awarded by the learned District Forum, vide impugned order. The Authorised Representative of the appellant prayed that the appellant be awarded interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the above amount.

7. Insofar as the abov