JUDGMENT - Justice G.G. LONEY, President:---This complaint is made by the complainant alleging deficiency in the service of the opposite parties. Shortly stated the facts are that the complainant had purchased a Light Motor Vehicle bearing Registration No. MMK-9209 for a consideration of Rs. 2,25,000/- in his own name on 7-4-1989. The said vehicle was insured by complainant with the New India Assurance Company Ltd., Bombay and had paid Rs. 7,354/- towards premium charges. The complainant alleged that this aforesaid vehicle was handed over to Opposite Party No. 2, who was at Nagpur with the intention to get the required body to be built at Nagpur. It is the complaint of the consumer that the said vehicle was taken by opposite party No. 2 to his solvent plant situated at Umred, which was driven by a licensed driver viz. Sri Krishnan Murkute to fetch one or two employees from nearby village, Dhurkheda. Unfortunately, on the fateful day i.e. on 30th June, 1989, the vehicle was burnt by miscreants. The vehicle suffered total loss. The complainant informed opposite party No. 1 vide letter dated 18th July, 1989 to carry out the survey of and to settle the insurance claim of the complainant. According to complainant, the survey was carried out by one Shri A.D. Deshpande on 30th June, 1989 and the estimated expenses for the repairs were settled at Rs. 2,13,368.55. According to complainant despite the surveyor's estimated loss, which were duly recommended the opposite party by communication dated 22-2-1991 informed the complainant that they are unable to settle the claim. Hence in this complaint the complainant claimed the settlement of his claim for Rs. 2,25,000/- together with interest as compensation on account of negligence on the part of the opposite party No. 1 to settle the complainant's claim. 2. The opposite party No. 1 filed its written version and denied the claim of the complainant for the similar reasons mentioned above. 3. We have heard Shri Rajan Pillay, Advocate for the complainant and Shri Mokashi, Advocate for the respondent. 4. The factum of insurance policy and vehicle being burnt down by the miscreants are all admitted facts. The only controversy between the parties is whether in terms of the Insurance policy in question the claim of the complainant was required to be settled in favour of the complainant by the opposite party No. 1. 4. The factum of insurance policy and vehicle being burnt down by the miscreants are all admitted facts. The only controversy between the parties is whether in terms of the Insurance policy in question the claim of the complainant was required to be settled in favour of the complainant by the opposite party No. 1. According to Shri Mokashi, the vehicle in question was a "public carrier" and therefore, the claim of the complainant was not payable as the vehicle was being used contrary to the terms of the Insurance policy. According to Shri Rajan Pillay, the vehicle was being used as a "private vehicle" by the applicant and therefore, the claim of was wrongly rejected by the opposite party No. 1. We have perused the Insurance Policy in question which is issued in the name of complainant Shri Manjeshwar Vishwanath. The total value of the policy is for Rs. 2,25,000/- valid between the period 17-3-1989 and 16-3-1990. The incident of burning occurred on 30th June, 1989 was within the period of valid insurance policy. In the Insurance policy, it is nowhere mentioned that the insurance claim is not payable to an insured in case of use of vehicle as "private carrier" or "public carrier". We therefore, see no reason as regards the controversy of vehicle being a "public carrier" or a 'private vehicle'. It is therefore, apparent that the claim of the complainant was rejected by the opposite party No. 1 for imaginary considerations. 5. We find the reason for rejection of complainant's claim is totally imaginary and unreasonable. The justified claim of the complainant has been wrongly rejected. In our view, there has been a deficiency in the service of the opposite party in not settling a justified claim of an insurer. 6. The surveyor of the opposite party No. 1 has assessed the complainant's loss at Rs. 2,65,000 as the salvage price. However, the complainant has placed on record the estimate from Jaika Motors Pvt. Ltd. dated 20th May, 1991 at Rs. 2,13,368.55. M/s. Jaika Motors Pvt. Ltd., is the authorised dealer for Tata Vehicles at Nagpur. It is contented by Shri Pillay that they have obtained the likely expenditure for the repair of the vehicle from the authorised dealer of Tata vehicle, which should be taken as the basis for the estimated loss caused to the vehicle in question. 2,13,368.55. M/s. Jaika Motors Pvt. Ltd., is the authorised dealer for Tata Vehicles at Nagpur. It is contented by Shri Pillay that they have obtained the likely expenditure for the repair of the vehicle from the authorised dealer of Tata vehicle, which should be taken as the basis for the estimated loss caused to the vehicle in question. It is also submitted by Shri Pillay that the vehicle in question was a brand new vehicle and there is no question of any depreciation to be calculated in this case. According to Shri Pillay, therefore, the loss should be estimated for Rs. 2,13,000/- as a round figure which is less than the price of the motor vehicle. 7. Considering the matter on record, we find that the estimated loss claimed by the complainant for Rs. 2,13,000/- is justified. The vehicle was purchased for Rs. 2,25,000/- a few months before the date of incident. Under this consideration, we find that the claim of the complainant is most reasonable and justifiable for the payment of Rs, 2,13,000/- towards the compensation. 8. The complainant did lodge the claim immediately after the incident but the opposite party has delayed the settlement of the claim for such a long time and thus deprived the complainant of his amount of claim. The National Commission in the case of Umedilal Aggarwal v. United India Assurance Company Ltd., has held that failure on the part of the insurer to settle the claim of the insured within a reasonable time amounts to deficiency in the service in terms of the definition of section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act. In the instant case, we find that the opposite party delayed the settlement of complainant's claim for unjustifiable reasons and rejected it on untenable grounds. The deficiency in the service of the opposite party is thus established in this case. Hence we pass the following order. ORDER The complaint is allowed. The opposite party No. 1 is directed to settle the complainant's claim for Rs. 2,13,000/- within 30 days from the receipt of this order. The aforesaid amount shall carry interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from 4-10-1989, i.e. from the date of surveyors' report till payment. The complainant also be paid Rs. 500/- as cost. Complaint allowed. *****