JUDGMENT - Justice G.G. LONEY, President :—It is alleged by the complainant that her truck bearing Registration No. MEG—2188 was involved in an accident and the claim arising out of the said incident on the basis of a valid insurance policy has been rejected by the New India Assurance Company Ltd. The complainant claimed compensation of Rs. 1,36,000 including the labour charges and cost of purchase of spare parts. Shortly stated, the necessary facts show that during the subsistence of an insurance policy issued by the opposite party bearing No. 41531/19078, the truck was damaged in an accident on 11-4-1984. The survey was carried out by one Mr. Godbole who recommended the liability of the insurance company for Rs. 79,019/- inclusive of labour charges and parts purchased. There was long pending correspondence between the parties. The last letter addressed by the complainant to opposite party is dated 10-9-1990. In that letter it was pointed out that letter No. CBI/150601/MTRCL/90/1160 dated 4-9-1990 which was received by the petitioner in which noncompliance was alleged on the part of the complainant. But opposite party thereby treated the claim of the complainant as filed. In another letter dated 27-7-1990, the opposite party has stated that the claim filed has been submitted to the Divisional Officer for advice. The complainant, therefore, claimed the amount of Rs. 79,019/- as assessed by the Surveyor Mr. Godbole with interest from the opposite party. The opposite party in reply, denied the claim of the complainant as time barred and also vaxacious. In short, the opposite party submitted mainly that since the complainant did not give the details of the previous claim in respect of the truck involved in an another accident, the claim was rejected. 2. We have heard Shri Kulvantsing for the complainant and Shri Mokashi, Advocate for the opposite party. 3. It is an admitted fact that the said truck was involved in an accident previously and thereafter, within four months, the accident in question occurred on 11-4-1984. It is also admitted fact that the complainant's claim is not granted till the filing of the complaint on the ground that he failed to give the details of the earlier accident to the opposite party. It is also admitted fact that the correspondence did take place between the parties till the year 1990. It is also admitted fact that the complainant's claim is not granted till the filing of the complaint on the ground that he failed to give the details of the earlier accident to the opposite party. It is also admitted fact that the correspondence did take place between the parties till the year 1990. It is also an undisputed fact that Shri Godbole carried the survey of the accident in question and recommended the loss at Rs. 79,019/-. 4. Shri Mokashi, the learned Advocate for the opposite party raised two legal points about the maintainability of the complaint. The first point is about the limitation. It is true that the claim in this complaint appears to be stale as the incident in question occurred on 11-4-1984. But considering the correspondence on record, the matter remained for consideration of the opposite party till 1990. Useful reference can be made to a letter dated 27-7-1990 from the opposite party in which it is clearly written that the claim filed is sent to the Divisional Office. It is also stated therein that further action will be taken in the matter at the earliest. This clearly shows, coupled with correspondence on record that till the year 1990, the claim of the complainant was under consideration. It is, therefore, wrong on the part of the Insurance Company to raise the objection of limitation. 5. The next submission of Shri Mokashi is that the complainant was himself responsible for not giving the details of the first accident to the opposite party despite repeated reminders. In fact, it is the main grievance of the opposite party that for want of details despite repeated communications on the part of the complainant, the opposite party was compelled to close the case. We are unable to accept this submission for the simple reason that the opposite party cannot reject the legitimate claim of an insurer merely because he has failed to give sufficient details. The surveyor is there at the disposal of the opposite party and the necessary details can be obtained from the office file of the Insurance Company. In the instant case, the complainant has satisfactorily explained that since her first claim was granted by the opposite party, she never thought that it was necessary to preserve those papers for such a long time. In the instant case, the complainant has satisfactorily explained that since her first claim was granted by the opposite party, she never thought that it was necessary to preserve those papers for such a long time. In our view, there is nothing wrong in the explanation of the complainant for not preserving the record of the first accident. But for non-preserving the claim, the complainant cannot be penalised by not considering her subsequent claim. The National Commission in the case of the New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. M/s. Bipro Electronic Pvt. Ltd., in Revision Petition No. 12 of 1990 decided on 16-3-1990, has held that merely because the insurer had totally repudiated his liability in respect of the claim does not mean that no proceedings can be validly initiated under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Thus, we are of the view that there has been deficiency in the service of the opposite party in not finalising the claim of the complainant within the reasonable period. On the contrary, we find that for no justifiable reasons, the opposite party delayed the settlement of the complainant's claim for seven years which according to us is a deficiency in the service of the opposite party. 6. The complainant has claimed Rs. 1,36,000/- for the loss suffered by her. However, we do not accept the estimate of loss as claimed by the complainant in her complaint. The survey report rendered by Mr. Godbole is not disputed by the opposite party. In para 2 of its written version, the opposite party impliedly admitted the contents of the survey report of Mr. Godbole. We, therefore, accept the survey report as document which describes the loss of the complainant at Rs. 79,019/-. We, therefore, accept the estimate of loss sustained by the complainant as assessed by the Surveyor. The complainant has claimed Rs. 2,55,988.65 and interest from 8-4-1985 at the rate of 18% p.a. which has been calculated in para 10 of the complaint. However, we do not agree for the calculation of interest for such a long period by the complainant. It would meet the ends of justice if we grant complainant a compensation of Rs. 10,000 for the delay for settlement of the claim. However, we do not agree for the calculation of interest for such a long period by the complainant. It would meet the ends of justice if we grant complainant a compensation of Rs. 10,000 for the delay for settlement of the claim. However, the complainant will be entitled to claim interest at the rate of 18% p.a. if the opposite party fails to pay to the complainant the amount of her claim for Rs. 79,019/- within one month from the receipt of this order. Hence, we pass the following order : ORDER 7. The complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to settle the claim of complainant for Rs. 79,019/- towards the full and final settlement of claim and also pay to the complainant Rs. 10,000/- as compensation. If the opposite party fails to pay the aforesaid claim and the amount of compensation within 30 days, both the amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 18% p.a. till the full payment. Complaint allowed. *****