1.      This revision petition under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the “Act’) assails the order dated 06.06.2017 in Appeal No. 17/2015 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow (in short, the ‘State Commission’) dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against order dated of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mainpuri (in short, the ‘District Forum’) dated 31.10.2014 in Consumer Complaint no. 155 of 2013.

2.      The facts as per the revisionist are that his late mother, Smt. Sudama Devi held a personal accident policy for Rs 3,00,000/- for the period 04.02.2011 to 03.02.2012 issued by the respondent. The insured died on 23.03.2011 due to an accident in which she was hit by a buffalo due to injuries. The revisionist’s claim for insurance as her nominee and legal heir was repudiated by the respondent against which he filed a complaint before the District Forum which came to be allowed in his favour with interest and costs. The State Commission on appeal, however, set aside the order which is impugned by way of this petition.  

3.      I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and carefully considered the material on record.       

4.      The petitioner argued that the order of the State Commission was erroneous and had incorrectly appreciated the evidence. It was argued that the death of the insured had been wrongly held to have not been an accident based on the exclusion clause of the policy. It was argued that the death of the insured was due to an untoward incident beyond the control of the insured and the purpose of the policy was to insure her life against such accidents. The State Commission had erred in not providing the terms and conditions of the policy containing the exclusion clause and only providing the cover note. It was argued that for this reason the respondent could not claim the benefit of the exclusion clause as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Modern Insulators Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. The reliance on a dubious report of the surveyor dated 06.09.2011 was also challenged by the petitioner. He therefore claimed the amount awarded by the District Forum with 6% interest p.a.

5.      Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 submitted that the amount of Rs 3,00,000/- awarded by the District Forum had been deposited in an interest bearing account of the District Forum on 26.05.2015 as a condition to the appeal being admitted. During the course of oral submissions, he submitted on instructions that the respondent had no objections to the release of this amount to the petitioner inclusive of the accrued interest. It was also submitted that 50% of the award amount had already been released to the petitioner. This was not disputed by the petitioner.

6.      The order of the District Commission had, on contest, concluded as under:

10.     The respondent insurance company has only disputed the cause of the accident wherein it is stated that being hit by buffalo and death due to hit does not come under the category of accidents.

11.     The petitioner has presented the