Sushil Kumar Garg, President —This appeal has been filed by the appellants which were OP1 to 4 before the District Forum, Bharatpur against the order dated 23.5.2007 passed by the District Forum, Bharatpur in complaint case No. 501/04, by which the complaint of respondent No.1 complainant was allowed against the appellants in the manner that the appellants were directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1 lac as amount of compensation for the amputation of leg of complainant respondent No.1 with interest @ 9% p.a. w.e.f. 13.10.2004 and further to pay Rs.10,000 as amount of compensation for mental agony and Rs.1,000 as amount of cost.

2. It arises in the following circumstances:

That the complainant respondent No.1 had filed a complaint against the appellants as well as respondent No.2 (OP No.5 before the District Forum, Bharatpur) on 13.10.2004 inter alia stating that the complainant respondent No.1 was working as Constable under respondent No.2 at Dholpur and he is covered under the Group Insurance Scheme of State of Rajasthan and as per the terms of the Scheme if any person receives permanent injury, he would be entitled to compensation of Rs.1 lac. It was further stated in the complaint that on 17.4.2002 when the complainant respondent No.1 was going on motor cycle, the said had met with an accident with the jeep as a result of which the complainant respondent No.1 had received multiple injuries and initially he was got admitted in the SMS, Hospital, Jaipur on 17.4.2002 and later on, on 28.11.2003 he was admitted in the hospital at Bharatpur where his right leg was amputated and he remained on medical leave for the period 17.4.2002 to 12.4.2004 and thereafter he had made a claim with respondent No.2 from whom the claim was sent to the appellants through letter dated 6.7.2004 on the ground that since the accident had taken place on 17.4.2002 and the claim was preferred after expiry of 2 years, therefore, it was time barred and as per terms of the policy ,the claim should have been preferred within one year from the date of accident. Thereafter the present complaint was filed.

3. A reply was filed by the appellants before the District Forum, Bharatpur on 7.12.2004 and in the reply the appellants had taken the same pleas which were taken in the repudiation letter dated 6.7.2004 and it was prayed that since the claim was time barred, therefore, the claim was rightly repudiated but it was admitted by the appellants that on 28.11.2003 in the Govt. hospital at Bharatpur one leg of the complainant respondent No.1 was a amputated.

4. A reply was also filed by respondent No.2,the employer of the complainant respondent No.1 on 27.11.2004 stating that the claim of the complainant respondent No.1 as soon as the same was received, was submitted to the appellants on 15.4.2004 and thus, there was no delay on the part of the employer, respondent No. 2.

5. The District Forum after hearing both the parties, through the impugned order 23.5.2007 had allowed the complaint as stated above inter alia holding that the scheme had been initiated for the welfare of the employees since the complainant respondent No.1 was admitted in the hospitals at Jaipur as well as at Bharatpur and right leg was amputated on 28.11.2003 and since he had remained on medical leave w.e.f. 17.4.2002 to 12.4.2004 and if there was some delay in lodging the claim by him to respondent No.2, that delay was excusable and thus the District Forum came to the conclusion that the claim was wrongly repudiated by the appellants.

6. Aggrieved from that order, this appeal has been filed by the appellants.

7. In this appeal, the main contention of learned Counsel for the appellants is that as per terms of the scheme, the claim must have been preferred within one year from the date of accident and since the claim was preferred after expiry of two years, therefore, the claim was rightly repudiated on ground of limitation and thus, the impugned order be quashed and set aside and appeal be allo