JUDGMENT -Mr. Justice G.G. LONEY, President:---In this complaint, the complainant alleged that his legitimate and genuine insurance claim arising out of insurance policy in respect of his household belongings has not been settled by opposite party. The complainant therefore prayed for settlement of his full insurance claim with Rs. 50,000/- towards damage. 2. Admittedly, the complainant had obtained from opposite party a household insurance policy on 13-6-90. The policy provided covers for damage due to various risks including flood and inundation on account of heavy flood on 8-6-1991. The complainant suffered a loss of his household articles and had claimed Rs. 1,69,321/-. However, opposite party passed the claim for Rs. 63,200/-. The grant of policy and the loss to the complainant due to flood have been admitted. The only issue to be decided by this commission is whether the complainant is entitled for the full claim of Rs. 1,69,321/- or the amount of Rs. 63,200/- paid by opposite party. 3. We have heard Shri Jahangir Gai for complainant and Shri Chile for opposite party viz. The Oriental Insurance Co. During the pendency of this complaint, an amount of Rs. 63,200/- came to be paid to the complainant on 14-1-1994. The only contention raised by opposite party No. 1 in its written version is very technical. The Insurance Company has adopted very interesting and funny opposition to the complainants claim. The Insurance Company had sent a discharge voucher for Rs. 63,200/- to the complainant dated 24-4-1992. The complainant was not satisfied due to insufficient amount for his full claim and therefore wrote in his hand-writing "under protest" on the discharge voucher which contained the averment "full and final settlement". According to Insurance Company because, the complainant failed to accept the payment of Rs, 63,200/- in full and final settlement of the claim, he has committed the breach of the conditions of policy and expressed its disapproval, therefore complaint be rejected. Beyond this contention, there is no other contention raised by opposite party in their written version. It is also hesitantly contended that the claim should have been referred to an "arbitrar". There is no denial by opposite party as regards the value of lost articles claimed by the complainant in his complaint vide exhibit "A". In exhibits "A" and "B" the complainant has stated that the total value of his lost household articles is for the amount of Rs. 1,63,321/-. There is no denial by opposite party as regards the value of lost articles claimed by the complainant in his complaint vide exhibit "A". In exhibits "A" and "B" the complainant has stated that the total value of his lost household articles is for the amount of Rs. 1,63,321/-. The claim of complainant, so far as the value of his household articles show in Exhibits "A" and "B" is concerned, is duly supported by insurance policy dated 13-6-1990. The complainant has also filed his affidavit dated 3-2-1994 in support of his allegations. On consideration of the allegations in the complaint and the documents on record, we are fully satisfied that the complainant suffered the total loss of Rs. 1,69,321/-. However, opposite party rejected the full claim of complainant on the recommendation of M/s. Hasman "Service Surveyor". The survey of the premises were conducted on 12-6-1991 and 12-10-1991. The Surveyors report is on record. The complainants policy was for the sum of Rs. 6,51,000/-. The premises were insured for Rs. 5,00,000/- and the household articles were valued at Rs. 1,16,000/-. While admitting the loss caused to the complainant the Surveyor rejected the valuation of complainants household articles. On perusal of Surveyors report it shows that Surveyor rejected the complainants claim of water-proof on the ground that life of water-proof is greater than 5 years. The Surveyor did not take into consideration the fact that because of damage due to rain, further water-proofing is needed and for that purpose complainant is bound to incur the expenses. Similarly, the complainants claim for Rs. 52,050/- which included the repairs charges for the building replastering and R.C.C. beams etc., has been rejected without any reason. Thus, we find from Surveyors report rejecting of complainants claim by the Surveyor is for flimsy reason. But Insurance Company relied on Surveyors report and rejected the complainants claim. We further find from the record, that the complainant has been very reasonable in claiming the value of damaged household articles for Rs. 1,21,698/- after correcting his claim and therefore, in our view the complainant is entitled for full claim of Rs. 1,21,698. 4. According to Shri Chile, the opposite party rejected the claim of complainant as he is entitled to claim compensation at the market price of his articles minus the depreciation value. 1,21,698/- after correcting his claim and therefore, in our view the complainant is entitled for full claim of Rs. 1,21,698. 4. According to Shri Chile, the opposite party rejected the claim of complainant as he is entitled to claim compensation at the market price of his articles minus the depreciation value. The opposite party has not bothered to state as to what was the market price of those articles on the date of damage. No efforts were made by opposite party No. 1 or their Surveyor to indicate the market value of the damaged articles on the date of occurance of flood. Under these circumstances, we accept the valuation claimed by complainant which is duly supported by documentary evidence apart from the affidavit from complainant. It is obvious that opposite party has been negligent while settling complainants claim without any sufficient cause which amounts to deficiency in its service. The complainants major claim have been rejected for irrelevant and for unreasonable consideration. There has been delay in settlement of complainants claim. The delay is referable to the negligence of Insurance Company. The complainant therefore has been put to financial loss for long time. The complainant has claimed in his complaint full settlement of claim and Rs. 50,000/- towards reasonable compensation. In our view since there has been delay in settlement of complainants claim he deserves compensation. Under the circumstances it would meet the ends of justice if complainant is granted interest @ 18% towards compensation. We therefore award complainant interest @ 18% p.a. over the total amount of Rs. 1,21,698/-. Thus, the complainant would be entitled to claim interest on the total amount @ 18% from the date of Surveyors report till 14-2-1994 and further interest on the balance amount of Rs. 58,498/- onwards from 14-2-1994 till realisation. Hence, we pass the following order. Order 5. The complaint is allowed. The opposite party No. 1 viz. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited is directed to settle complainants claim for Rs. 1,21,698/-. Since Rs. 63,200/- has been paid, the opposite party is liable to pay Rs. 58,498/- to the complainant towards his balance claim. The complainant be paid interest @ 18% per annum over the amount of Rs. 1,21,698/- from 22-4-1992 till 14-1-1994 till realisation towards compensation. The complainant also be paid Rs. 1000/- as costs of this complaint. 1,21,698/-. Since Rs. 63,200/- has been paid, the opposite party is liable to pay Rs. 58,498/- to the complainant towards his balance claim. The complainant be paid interest @ 18% per annum over the amount of Rs. 1,21,698/- from 22-4-1992 till 14-1-1994 till realisation towards compensation. The complainant also be paid Rs. 1000/- as costs of this complaint. The aforesaid amounts be paid the complainant within 30 days from the receipt of this order failing which entire amount shall carry further interest @ 18% per annum till realisation. Complaint allowed. *****