Heard learned counsel for the Appellant. None appears for the Respondent.

              2. Learned Counsels for the appellant submitted that the Complainant has purchased policy for a sum assured Rs. 1, 00000/- on 20-01-2005 for a period of 20 years. It is alleged that during currency of policy complainant met accident and lost one leg.

            3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant further submitted that the Complainant after having permanent disabilities made claim before O.P who allegedlyrepudiated claim on the ground stated therein. Complainant being aggrieved filed complaint because he is beneficiary but not master policy holder.

           4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant further stated that O.P filed written version stating that there is no permanent disability as per policy and as such repudiated claim. The disability was only 70% and being not 100% as per policy complainant is not entitled to compensation.

           5.  After hearing both parties, Learned District Forum passed the following order:

                  “So far as deficiency of serviced is concerned, the O.P has not considered all the pros and cons of Exbt.2. The complainant is entitled to get the maturity value and the denial of O.P amounts to deficiency of service. So the O.P is to pay compensation of Rs. 10, 000, 00/- to the complainant and to pay maturity value within 3 months from the date of this order. Points are allanswered. Hence, it is ordered.

                   That the complaint petitioner is allowed on contest against the O.P without cost. The O.P is directed to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000.00(Rupees ten thousand) only to the complainant for the deficiency of service andto pay maturity value of the policy within 3 months from the date of this order. Parties are to bear their own cost.

                6. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the Learned District Forum erredin law by directing to      pay compensation to the Complainant and pay the maturity value because this is not  case of  total  and permanent disability of complainantof complaint .According to him complainant has got 70% disability but not 100%, so as to entitle complainant to get maturity  amount.  He submitted to set-aside impugned order.

           7. Considered the submission of learned counsel for appellant and perused the DFR and impugned order. It is admitted fact that complainant is insured having purchasedpolicy from O.P. It is not in dispute that during currency of policy complainant met accident. It is admitted that he was driver at the time of accident. His disability certificate shows that his right leg at mid thigh was amputed.Medical Board shows that he has 55% of permanent disability. When amputed above knee, it amounts to total leg amputed and forever he became handicapped todrive vehicle. So he has got total and permanent disability for which repudiation letter is not acceptable. So he is entitled to settle of claim as per     Cl 10-4 of policy. But Maturity amount is not available as maturity period is not over.

             8. In view of above discussion thiscommission confirms the impugned order but modify the operative portion of impugned order by directing the OP to pay amount by computing compensation on total and permanent disability within 2 months from today to complainant .The rest of impugned order remain unaltered.

            9. Appeal is allowed in part accordingly. No cost.

             Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the confonet website of this Commission to treat same as if copy of order received from this commission.