JUDGMENT - Justice G.G. LONEY, President :—The complaint relates to a claim against the opposite parties for committing deficiency in the service. The short facts giving rise to this consumer dispute are that the complainant had obtained an "Open Marine Insurance Policy" from the opposite parties, namely, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as "Insurance Company"). The validity period of the Policy was between 16-08-1990 to 15-08-1991. The Policy covered the despatches of yarn packed in Cartons, Gunny bags, cases etc. for a total value of Rs. One Crore. The complainant alleged that a consignment of 29 cartons of Yarn was despatched to Bhiwandi from Silvassa, on 31-08-1990. The truck, bearing Registration No. MTT-3863 met with an accident on 01-09-1990 between the villages Manor and Shirsad. The complainant received a message from his transport operator that the truck carrying the goods met with an accident and that the goods were transported in another vehicle to Bhivandi godown. The opposite party was, therefore, informed. The opposite party carried out the survey of the damage on 03-09-1990 and assessed the loss at Rs. 1,43,676/-. The complainant alleged that, inspite of giving full co-operation for the settlement of its claim to the Insurance Co., yet there has been delay in settlement of the claim. The complainant, therefore, claims Rs. 1,43,676/- towards value of the loss (+) interest. 2. The opposite party (Insurance Company) filed its written version, dated 03-03-1992 and denied its liability. According to the opposite party, the delay was due to the investigation made by the Surveyor. It is also alleged that the truck in question was not carrying any goods and that the claim is incorrect. The opposite party also opposed the complainant's claim on technical grounds. We have heard the complainant and Shri Mokashi, Advocate for the opposite party. We have also very carefully gone through the record of this complaint. The facts of Insurance and the truck involved in the accident are not in dispute. The disputed point is that, according to the opposite party, the truck, which was involved in the accident, did not carry the consignment in question from Silvassa to Bhiwandi and, therefore, the claim of the complainant is false. 3. The complainant has placed on record the photographs of the damaged goods. The goods in the truck in question were of Cotton Yarn. 3. The complainant has placed on record the photographs of the damaged goods. The goods in the truck in question were of Cotton Yarn. According to the complainant, after the accident, the goods were damaged and to save further damage from rains, goods were transported from the spot of accident to Bhiwandi in another truck. According to the opposite party, the entire claim needs to be rejected, as it is not based on true facts. 4. We have perused the report of the Surveyor and found that he has assessed the loss at Rs. 1,50,000/- in the accident in question. It is alleged by the complainant that, after this complaint was filed, a letter rejecting the complainant's claim was anti-dated in order to support the submission. The complainant brought to our notice that the complaint is filed on 04-10-1991 and the letter of rejection of the complaint is dated 06-01-1992. The complainant also alleged that no spot survey was done by the Surveyor. The complainant has filed on record affidavit and submitted that the accident is genuine, but the opposite party is rejecting the complainant's claim on account of unreasonable grounds. 5. We find that, apart from photographs on record, the complainant has reported the matter to the Police about the accident. Police report is dated 04-09-1990. There are other contemporaneous documents on record, namely, First Information Report, spot-Panchanama, the 2nd Surveyor's spot survey report. All these documents clearly prove that there was an accident of truck in question loaded with cotton yarn and the yarn were damaged. The photographs clearly show that white cotton yarn bales were scattered at the spot of accident, which were being transported in the truck in question. The complainant further alleged that the cotton yarn was shifted in other truck from the site of accident to Bhiwandi, in order to save further loss due to rains etc. and that was done without any mala fide intention. According to the complainant, the charge of the opposite party that nothing was transported in the truck cannot be accepted. There is simple denial without any proof. This denial does not inspire our confidence when it is coming from the opposite party belatedly for the first time, after filing of this complaint. In our view, the total denial appears to be got-up. There is simple denial without any proof. This denial does not inspire our confidence when it is coming from the opposite party belatedly for the first time, after filing of this complaint. In our view, the total denial appears to be got-up. The Surveyor, in his report, which is earliest after the occurrence, never whispered about such a happening. We, therefore, find that the complainant's claim is genuine and duly proved. The opposite party is clearly wrong in delaying the settlement of the Insurance Claim in this case. 6. In our considered view, the complainant has proved his allegations and deserves compensation, since he has suffered the loss on account of the negligence in the service of the opposite party. Hence, we pass the following order: ORDER The complaint is allowed. The opposite party shall pay to the complainant the claim of insurance of Rs. 1,43,676/- within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the amount shall carry interest @18% per annum. The opposite party is also directed to pay to the complainant Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation for the delay and harassment suffered by it and also Rs. 500/- as costs. Complaint allowed. *****