JUDGMENT - Justice G.G. LONEY, President:—In this complaint, the allegations are made against M/s. United India Insurance Co., (hereinafter referred to as "Insurance Company"), in rendering deficient service. Shortly stated, the facts are that the complainant is a Proprietor of the firm, styled as M/s. Suren Enterprises. The firm deals in export of ready-made Garments. The complainant obtained an Insurance Policy, bearing No. 120100/11/16/13/20/04/11925/90, dated 23rd March 1988. On 20th September 1970, there was a fire at the place where the stock of the complainant was kept. The stock was burnt in fire. The complainant lodged the claim with opposite party. The incident of fire was reported to the Police on 24-09-1990. Along with First Information Report (F.I.R.), a list of goods destroyed in fire, along with machinery, furniture, fixtures and electrical appliances and accessories was given. The Police had conducted an on-the-spot Panchnama on 21-09-1990. According to the complainant, the goods worth Rs. 1 lac were hypothecated with Punjab National Bank, at Santacruz (West) Branch. It is made clear that the hypothecation was pertaining to the Export order of Shorts of 2000 (two thousand) dozens. Against this hypothecation, packing credit of Rs. 1,00,000/- was obtained. It is also alleged that these goods were insured with the opposite party, after payment of due premium. According to the complainant, the Survey was conducted by the opposite party. The Bankers also lodged the claim with the Insurance Co. The complainant, therefore, alleged that, despite the claim lodged by herself and by the Bankers, the opposite party delayed the settlement of the claim. Ultimately, the opposite party, nearly after 1½ years, sent a voucher to the complainant, settling her claim for Rs. 69,205/- as against the claim of Rs. 3,95,727/-. The complainant protested the settlement of her claim for a meagre amount and requested to pay full amount of her claim for Rs. 3,95,727/-. The complainant, therefore, filed this complaint, claiming a total amount of Rs. 9,18,613.25, inclusive of interest, loss of business and legal charges. 2. The opposite party filed written version, dated 27th January 1993, denying the claim of the complainant. According to the opposite party, although the Insurance Policy was for Rs. 4,00,000/-, actual goods lost in fire were of the lesser amount. 9,18,613.25, inclusive of interest, loss of business and legal charges. 2. The opposite party filed written version, dated 27th January 1993, denying the claim of the complainant. According to the opposite party, although the Insurance Policy was for Rs. 4,00,000/-, actual goods lost in fire were of the lesser amount. It is also stated by the opposite party that the delay has been caused due to the report of the Surveyor, which was received on 17th December 1991. The opposite party also submitted that the discharge voucher for Rs. 69,205/- was sent to the complainant towards the amount of loss assessed by the Surveyor. In short, the case of the opposite party is that whatever loss has been assessed by the Surveyor was only payable to the complainant. 3. We have gone through the allegations of the complainant and written version filed by the opposite party and also heard the complainant in person and Shri Chile for the opposite party. The points, which arise for our consideration, are :— (1) Whether the complaint is maintainable? (2) What is the loss suffered by the complainant? (3) Whether there has been negligence on the part of the opposite party to settle the complainant's claim? As regards Point No. (1), the complainant's stock was insured by the Insurance Company for Rs. 4,00,000/- under the Policy in question, is an admitted fact. Similarly, the complainant's insured goods/stock were destroyed in fire, is also an admitted fact. It is therefore, clear that the complainant was a "Consumer" of the "Service" of the opposite party for the purpose of Insurance, since the complainant had paid the requisite amount of premium to the opposite party. The only objection of the opposite party is that the matter should have been referred to the Arbitrator as per provisions of the Condition No. 13 of the Fire Policy. The National Commission has already held in several cases that, despite the Arbitration clause, the complaint as regards deficiency in the service of Insurance claim is maintainable under the Provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. Thus, the complainant is a "Consumer" and the complaint is maintainable. 4. As regards Point No. (2), admittedly, the Insurance Policy provided cover of Rs. 4,00,000/-. The contention of the opposite party is that, since the goods were hypothecated for Rs. Thus, the complainant is a "Consumer" and the complaint is maintainable. 4. As regards Point No. (2), admittedly, the Insurance Policy provided cover of Rs. 4,00,000/-. The contention of the opposite party is that, since the goods were hypothecated for Rs. 1,00,000/- to the Bank, that should be considered as the value of the goods damaged in fire. The complainant had hypothecated the export order only of shorts to the Punjab National Bank for Rs. 1,00,000/-. The complainant has, in her affidavit, dated 08-02-1993, stated that the value of the goods was based on the manufacturing stock taking into account the material and labour cost. The details of the pricing of the goods were supplied to the Surveyor on 12-10-1990. She also stated that, although she was entitled to more loan than Rs. 1,00,000/-, she had opted for Rs. 1,00,000/- against hypothecation, according to her requirement. These averments made by her in her complaint are not controverted by the opposite party by filing the counter affidavit. The complainant has stated that, actually, it is in her complaint that the stock was worth Rs. 3,95,727/- when the incident of fire took place. There is nothing on record to indicate that the stock of goods destroyed in fire was worth Rs. 1,00,000/- only. It is only by conjuncture that the opposite party is estimating the burnt stock of Rs. 1,00,000/- only. 5. It is found that the opposite party mechanically relied on the belated report of the Surveyor, which was received after 14 months, after the date of fire. The opposite party mechanically accepted that report for arriving at the figure of the loss of Rs. 69,205/-. It is important to note that despite our direction, the opposite party did not place on record the Survey Report, nor filed the affidavit of the Surveyor to justify the reduction of the complainant's claim. It is faintly suggested by the opposite party that the Surveyor reduced the claim on the ground that the goods manufactured were lying in the premises of the insured for a long time and could not be sold in the local market. The explanation for reducing the complainant's claim appears to be totally baseless. There cannot be also depreciation, so far as the Garments are concerned. The explanation for reducing the complainant's claim appears to be totally baseless. There cannot be also depreciation, so far as the Garments are concerned. According to the complainant, the Garments destroyed in fire were of export quality and could be sold even at the higher price in the local market. According to the complainant, there is no question of depreciation on the textile goods, since they could fetch good price in the local market, being designed as "Export Quality". Thus, we find that the reasons for reducing the complainant's claim from Rs. 3,95,727/- to merely Rs. 69,205/- is not based on any reasonable and convincing grounds. The Surveyor seems to have assumed that the samples were utilised and, therefore, wrongly calculated 1/3rd value of the total stock destroyed in fire. There is no support to this assumption made by the Surveyor. Therefore, in our view, the reduction in value of the insured goods is not justified in this case. Moreover, we find that the Surveyor is not an expert in Textile Garments. 6. The opposite party has admitted the delay in settling the claim on account of late submission of the report by the Surveyor. The National Commission, in the case of Shri Umedilal Aggarwal v. K.K. Nagpal and others, has held that, failure to settle an insurance claim within reasonable time amounts to delay in settlement of the Insurance, a deficiency in service of the Insurance Company. We, therefore, find that the complainant has proved her allegations beyond reasonable doubt. The delay of three years in settlement of the complainant's claim is positively an act of deficiency in the service of the opposite party, which caused business loss to the complainant. In our view, the complainant is entitled to receive the full claim of Rs. 3,95,727.00. We also find that the complainant is also entitled to get compensation for the loss suffered by her due to delay in settlement of her claim. The complainant had obtained Bank loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- under hypothecation and has been paying 20% interest per annum over that loan. The complainant, therefore, prayed for interest over her claim @ 18% per annum. We find that normally the complainants claim could have been settled within 6 months, but it could not be settled for such a long time and, therefore, in our view, deserves grant of interest by way of compensation. The complainant, therefore, prayed for interest over her claim @ 18% per annum. We find that normally the complainants claim could have been settled within 6 months, but it could not be settled for such a long time and, therefore, in our view, deserves grant of interest by way of compensation. The National Commission, in Original Petition No. 42 of 1991, decided on 30th January 1992 (M/s. Uniplas India Ltd. v. The National Insurance Co. Ltd.)1, has held that the Insurance Company has reduced the amount payable under the Insurance Policy arbitrarily, unfairly and has not settled the claim within the reasonable expedition and has thus been guilty of deficiency in service towards the insured. The National Commission, therefore, ordered the Insurance Company to pay to the complainant the claim amount with 18% interest p.a. 7. In the instant case also, we find that the Insurance Company has arbitrarily and unfairly reduced the complainant's claim and did not settle the claim for a period of three years and, therefore, in our considered view, the complainant is entitled to the settlement of her claim of Rs. 3,95,727/- with interest @ 18% per annum from 1st April, 1991, i.e. after a period of six months, which normally required to settle the claim. Hence, we pass the following order : ORDER The complaint is allowed. The opposite party M/s. United India Insurance Company is directed to settle the complainant's claim for Rs. 3,95,727.00, together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 1-4-1991, within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. The complainant also be paid Rs. 500/- as cost. The rest of the claim of the complainant is rejected. Complaint allowed. *****