JUDGMENT Pratima Malhotra, Member.—His complaint reveals that Shri Gorkhi Ram, an un-educated un-employed youth had purchased a Tata Truck Model, 1983 bearing registration No. H. P. S 5887 to earn his livelihood; that the said truck was insured with the respondent company in an amount of Rs. 1,80,000 ; that the policy was valid for the period 18-31987 to 17-3-1988 ; that the truck met with accident on 26-9-1987 ; that on information and necessary documents furnished by the complainant, the respondent got spot survey done through Shri B. K. Sharma, Surveyor/Loss Assessor, Shimla and thereafter by M/s R. D. Gupta and Associates, Consulting Engineers, Surveyors and Loss Assessors, Chandigarh ; that according to the latter if the total loss was to be the basis for settling the claim, then the complainant was entitled to an amount of Rs. 1 53,000 only ; that as the complainant has used the truck only for six months after insurance, he is entitled to the entire assessed amount of Rs. 1,80,000, there being no question of any depreciation as deducted by the Loss Assessor. That since that claim has not been settled despite the complainants best efforts, co-operation, and repeated personal visits to the companys offices and meeting the various high-ups, hence deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. By way of relief he has claimed: — (a) the entire assessed amount ; Rs. 1,80,000 (b) amount spent on various visits to Shimla/Chandi-garh (to offices of the respondents) Rs 20,000 (c) Damage on account of loss and injury suffered on account of harassment and mental torture etc. etc. Rs 1,00,000 Total Rs. 3.00,000 (It is not clear how the claim has been computed at Rs 4,00,000). In addition interest at the rate of 18% per annum w e. f 1-1-1988 till the date of payment as also special damages amounting to Rs 20,000 have been claimed. 2. In the written reply the respondent has disputed the above allegations, hence the dispute There is no denial as to the currency of the insurance policy on the date of accident, nor about the amount for which the truck had been insured The facts regarding accident, appointment of Joss assessors also have been admitted. 2. In the written reply the respondent has disputed the above allegations, hence the dispute There is no denial as to the currency of the insurance policy on the date of accident, nor about the amount for which the truck had been insured The facts regarding accident, appointment of Joss assessors also have been admitted. What is specifically denied is deficiency in service, as alleged, as according to the opposite party the claim was repudiated way back in August, 1989, because of non supply of certain documents by the complainant inspite of repeated efforts to that effect. Therefore, the complainant is in no position to maintain the complaint and is estopped due to his own acts, deeds and conduct. Apart from the above, the respondent in the preliminary objections has questioned the jurisdiction of the Commission to try and hear the present claim as the rights, of any, of the complainant, can be redressed by a Civil Court only. Another objection raised is that the complaint is time barred. 3. We heard the learned Counsels for the parties at great length on the 3rd June, 1993. At the concluding stage the learned Counsel for the respondent prayed for some time to seek instructions from his client in regard to possible out of Court negotiated settlement On the next date of hearing, he repeated his request, which was allowed and case adjourned to July 6, 1993. But on that day none made appearance on behalf of the respondent leaving us with no option but to decide the lis on merits, on the basis of record and the arguments already heard. 4. Whether the contention of the insurer that the matter is one arising out of breach of contract for which only civil remedy is available is tenable ? And whether repudiation of claim arising out of insurance takes way the jurisdiction of Redressal Forum ? Both the questions, we find answered in the negative by the Honble National Commission in the Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India v Uma Devi, 1991 (2) CPR 662 (NC), as is seen from the observations extracted herebelow: — "A breach of contract itself may result in deficiency. Both the questions, we find answered in the negative by the Honble National Commission in the Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India v Uma Devi, 1991 (2) CPR 662 (NC), as is seen from the observations extracted herebelow: — "A breach of contract itself may result in deficiency. It may be possible to view any loss or damage suffered on account of such deficiency in service as one arising out of breach of contract, but the Act specifically provides for a special remedy for such grievance and for compensation for the alleged loss by getting an adjudication of the dispute by the redressal forums constituted under the Act. This is in addition to the ordinary remedy available by way of approaching a Civil Court. The contention that the matter is one arising out of breach of contract and the only remedy available is only by approaching Civil Court is thus not tenable in view of the decision of this Commission on an identical plea in the case of Synco Textiles Pvt. Ltd. v. Economic Transport Organisation and others" and "The very fact that the Insurance Act provides for a machinery for remedy for grievances arising out of repudiation of a claim under section 45 leads to show that the Corporation has to satisfy a Court that the repudiation was justified. Accordingly it is for the consumer to choose a forum convenient to him to seek remedy for the loss suffered because of deficiency in service. As the provisions of this Act are in addition to and not in derogation of any other law for the time being in force, the State Commission has the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and to investigate whether the repudiation was justified or not and to grant such relief as it deems fit if it is satisfied that there was deficiency in service. We therefore cannot uphold this contention in view of the decision of this Commission in Revision Petition No. 12 of 1990, New India Assurance Co. Ltd v. Vipro Electronics Pvt. Ltd, 1991 (I) CPR 531 (NC), where the identical point has been elaborately discussed". The contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent on these two grounds is untenable and hence is rejected. 5. Ltd v. Vipro Electronics Pvt. Ltd, 1991 (I) CPR 531 (NC), where the identical point has been elaborately discussed". The contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent on these two grounds is untenable and hence is rejected. 5. Another objection raised on behalf of the respondent is that the complaint is time barred The elaboration of this point occurs in paragraph 9 of the affidavit filed by way of evidence by Shri S K. Gupta, Branch Manager of the respondent Company. According to him the complainant ought to have approached the Court within one year from the date of repudiation i e. 19-10-1989, whereas the complaint has been filed on 18-11-1990. 6. At the very outset, let it be noted that the provisions of the Limitation Act have not expressly been made applicable to the complaints filed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 In order to curb the tendency of raking up stale or dead cases what the National Commission had laid down is that normally claims brought after three years of cause of action should not be entertained. Even otherwise, the learned Counsel for the respondent has not been able to convince us that according to the provisions of the Limitation Act it is not within time. Our attention was drawn also to condition No. 8 of the Terms, Exceptions and Conditions attached to the policy and in particular to its last para which stipulates that in case of disclaimer of liability under the policy, and any claim thereunder or relating thereto should be made the subject matter of a suit in a Court of law within twelve calender months. In our view this contention lacks substance in so far as redressal of a grievance regarding deficiency in service by a consumer before the Consumer Forum is concerned In our view its assistance might be invoked with success only when a suit is filed for breach of contract in a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. In this view of the matter, the complaint cannot be held time barred or stale. The objection on this score, thus, stands ruled out. 7. It is well settled that a dispute arising out of a contract of Insurance can be made subject matter of adjudication under the Consumer Protection Act. 1986. In this view of the matter, the complaint cannot be held time barred or stale. The objection on this score, thus, stands ruled out. 7. It is well settled that a dispute arising out of a contract of Insurance can be made subject matter of adjudication under the Consumer Protection Act. 1986. (Cf: Shri Umeri Lal Aggarwal v United India Assurance Company Ltd, 1991 (!) CPR 17) It is equally well settled that any unilateral repudiation of a claim by an insurance company does not disentitle the policy holder from approaching the competent Redressal Forum seeking adjudication of the question whether the said repudiation was justified in law. In such a case it has been observed by the Honble National Commission in Life Insurance Corporation of India, Andhra Pradesh v. Shri Bhavanam Srinivas Reddy, 1991 (2) CPR 587 (NC)# that "the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has not only the jurisdiction but also a duty to investigate into the question whether the charge made by the Insurance Company on the basis of which the alleged repudiation was made is well founded in fact" After having disposed of the preliminary objections, we proceed to find as to whether or not the repudiation decided upon by the respondent company was on good and valid grounds The reasons justifying the repudiation enumerated in the respondents reply to the complaint are "non-supply of relevant documents, invalidity of driving licence at the time of accident and because of his own negligence and violation of terms and conditions of the policy". However, from the scrutiny of the correspondence placed on record by the respondent, we find that at no point of time any of these shortcomings save the demand for certain information/documents, of which we would soon make a mention, we ever communicated to the complainant or to the UCO Bank which too bad been pursuing the claim Obviously, these have been added as an after-thought apparently in order to buttress the action of repudiation Even otherwise, we find no substance in the allegations either of negligence, the invalidity of the licence or the violation of any specific terms and conditions of the policy What were the documents that were asked for and reportedly not furnished by the complainant ? These documents as per the letter placed on record were (?) driving licence (ii) cash memos/bills (iii) goods receipt and (iv) salvage In M/s R D Guptas report (Annexure P-2) it is unambiguously verified "D/L checked and found in order". It is also recorded therein that the driving license was valid upto 20-10-1990 and was for LMV/HMV/Hill Roads. There was thus no just cause to insist on its production or doubt its validity, after both the facts relating to the driving licence had been verified by the surveyors appointed by the company The nature of the cash memo/bills has not been verified. We have strained our mind but are still unable to apprehend this requirement or i«s purpose Likewise as argued by the UCO Bank authorities there was no material relevance of the goods receipts to the claim. To expect handing over of the salvage of the truck before the settlement of the claim is. undeniably, unreasonable. In any case it has rot been shown to us that any law, regulation, instructions of the company or any other justification made it indispensable to process to claim in their absence. We thus, have no hesitation to conclude that the repudiation of the claim was not a bona fide decision. As a necessary corollary the complainant is held entitled to the insurance claim under the policy that was valid on the date of accident. 8. It is true that M/s R. D. Gupta and Associates had not recommended settlement of the claim on total loss basis as "in their opinion it was found to be uneconomical to the underwiters” They had, therefore, after negotiation with him and his representatives made the complainant to accept the claim on repair basis to the tune of Rs. 91,173 80 paise. After a lapse of more than 5 years, it would be unjust to bind the complainant to the consent said to have been given sometime before or during December, 1987 when the report was made Moreover, with the passage of time and exposure of the salvage to the vagaries ot weather it might not now be possible to carry out the repairs at all. The cost of spare parts and labour too has considerably gone up in the meantime. The cost of spare parts and labour too has considerably gone up in the meantime. For these reasons also it would be unfair to base the relief on the repair estimates of 1987 In the circumstances we allow the claim on total loss basis and fix the quantum at Rs. 1,53,000, the amount assessed by the surveyors. We find no valid ground to concede to the claim of the complainant and allow him an amount of Rs. 27,900 also deducted as depreciation by the surveyor, for the truck undeniably was of 1983 Model and when it met with accident in September, 1987, it was more than 4 years old Out of this amount of Rs. 1,53,000, the respondent company may deduct the value of the salvage assessed at Rs. 5,000, should the complainant fail to make an offer of handing over salvage to the companys representative at the site within a month from the date of this order. In addition, we allow an amount of Rs 17,000 as retrieving and towing charges as mentioned by the said surveyor firm. 9. In another case Inder Singh Dhanta v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd, Branch II, The Mall Shimla. Limitation 7 Shimla State Commission, we have held that the insurance claims should invariably be settled ex-peditiously. For reasons mentioned, we had allowed therein interest after a period of 6 months from the date of accident. Following that precedent we allow in this case also interest effective from 1st April, 1988 and not from 1-1-1988 as claimed. The rate would be 18% per annum of Rs. 1,53,000 plus Rs 17,000 i.e. on Rs, 1,70,000 only. 10. In addition, we allow a composite compensation amounting to Rs. 25,000 only in consideration of expenses that the complainant has un disputedly incurred in making numerous visits from his native place to Shimla and Chandigarh etc etc. to pursue the claim at various levels as also for the loss he, no doubt, has suffered because of remaining unemployed all this period ar d for the mental torture and harassment. 11. No case has been made out for award of special costs. The cost of proceedings before usf we, however, allow to the tune of Rs 1,000 payable by the respondent within 6 weeks from the date of the order alongwith the insurance money, interest and the compensation mentioned in tbc foregoing paragraphs. 12. 11. No case has been made out for award of special costs. The cost of proceedings before usf we, however, allow to the tune of Rs 1,000 payable by the respondent within 6 weeks from the date of the order alongwith the insurance money, interest and the compensation mentioned in tbc foregoing paragraphs. 12. In the course of recording our above findings the authorities noted below that were cited by the learned Counsel for the respondent have been duly taken into consideration: — 1. M/S Janta Machine Tools v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 1991 (II) CPR 18 (NC). 2. M/s. New Jaipur Dyeing and Tents Works v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 1991 (II) CPR 149 (NC). 3. C P. Philip v. Mis Pulimoottil Enterprises and another, 1991 (I!) CPR 417 (Ker). 4. New Bharat Const. Co. v. Oriental Insurance Co., 1991 (II) CPR 498 (Raj). None of these has turned out to be of any assistance to the respondent. 13. This file, after completion, be consigned to the record. Announced today on this 7th day of August 1993. Complaint allowed.