JUDGMENT - Justice G.G. LONEY, President:---In the Original Complaint No. 481 of 1992, M/s. Safari Industries Ltd. complained about the deficiencies in the service of M/s. National Insurance Co. while rendering the Insurance service to complainant. The complainants claim for the settlement of Insurance claim was rejected by the opposite party without any reason vide letter dated 1-7-1991. This commission by an order dated 3-8-1993 has passed ex-parte order against the opposite party. The said order was challenged in appeal by the National Insurance Co. Ltd. and the National Commission by an order dated 10-12-1993, remanded the complaint back to this commission for fresh disposal on merits, after giving full and fair opportunity to both the sides and then to decide it. Hence this complaint was again came to this commission for fresh disposal. The National Commission had directed both the parties to appeal before this Commission on 18th January, 1994. An application was therefore, made by the complainant to place this complaint for hearing on 18th January, 1994 and that application was given Misc. Application No. 7 of 1994. Thus by this common order, complainant No. 481 of 1992 as well as Misc. Application No. 7 of 1994 are being disposed of. 2. We have heard Shri Chitnis, advocate for complainant and Shri Ramdas, advocate for opposite party. 3. The point that arise for our consideration is as to whether there has been deficiencies in the service of the opposite parties, while rendering the service as an insurer to the complainant. Undisputed facts are that complainant, M/s. Safari Industries Ltd. were insured by M/s. National Insurance Co. and had lodged their claim on 13th July, 1986 claiming Rs. 8,92,824/-. The O.P. after a lapse of 5½ years informed the complainant that their claim is rejected without assigning any reason. The text of the said letter is reproduced below. "As per Head Office instructions, we regret to inform you that the above claim has been rejected, since your letter dated 10-7-1986 was received in our office on 16-7-1986 (i.e. 3 days after the loss)". 4. The aforesaid texts do not convey any reasons, whatsoever as to why complainants claim has been rejected. 5. While opposing complainants claim, National Insurance Co. raised technical grounds. The 1st ground is about the maintainability of the complaint. 4. The aforesaid texts do not convey any reasons, whatsoever as to why complainants claim has been rejected. 5. While opposing complainants claim, National Insurance Co. raised technical grounds. The 1st ground is about the maintainability of the complaint. According to Shri Ramdas, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party is that the claim having been rejected by the letter dated 1st July, 1991 the present complaint filed on 18th June, 1992 is barred by limitation, in view of Clause 19 attached to the policy. It is argued that the opposite party is not liable for any loss or damage after the expiration of 12 months from the date of the disclaimer. This technical objection cannot be accepted in view of the fact that the complaint has been filed by complainant on 18th June, 1992 from the disclaimer of the claim on 1-7-1991. Factually, this objection can not be accepted as this present complaint has been lodged by the complainant within 12 months period from the date of the letter of disclaimer dated 1-7-1991. 6. The next contention raised by Shri Ramdas opposing the complainants claim is that complainant made a false and highly exaggerated claim as regards the loss suffered by him in the alleged fire. This submission of Shri Ramdas is contrary to the report of the merit detective and security services dated 7-12-1987. The said report was rendered by the detective agency in which the agency recommended that the complainant suffered heavy loss in the fire and the claim was genuine, and hence recommended to settle it under the circumstances. It is again found on record that at the instance of the Insurance Company, further investigation was made by the detective agency and the 2nd report dated 10th May, 1988 is also placed on record. In that report at page No. 7, in its conclusion the detective agency has stated that the risk cover at several depots of the insured is not a fiction but the real one. It is also clearly stated at conclusion (E) that there was no transfer of stocks from the Chandigarh Sahidabad Depots to Bombay. In conclusion (F) it is the finding of the Detective Agency that risk cover at Khetani Textile Compound, Kurla, Bombay for M/s. Safari Sales Pvt. Ltd. is 19,50,000/- and the risk cover for M/s. Safari Industries Ltd. is 25,00,000/-. In conclusion (F) it is the finding of the Detective Agency that risk cover at Khetani Textile Compound, Kurla, Bombay for M/s. Safari Sales Pvt. Ltd. is 19,50,000/- and the risk cover for M/s. Safari Industries Ltd. is 25,00,000/-. These two reports conclusively establish that the complainant suffered the loss and therefore, having fully proved the loss of the amount of Rs. 8,92,824/- the rejection by the O.P. in one line vide communication dated 1-7-1991 do not disclose any other reasons whatsoever except that the letter dated 10-7-1986 was received after 3 days of the loss. When such contention is raised by the Insurance Company, the burden lies on them to prove the delay. On the contrary, the investigation report dated 10-5-1988, has considered these 2 letters including closure and movement of the stocks between the effected godown, so as to clear all deficiencies of doubts. Since the investigator has clearly dispelled the doubts, it automatically follows that the rejection of complainants claim vide communication dated 1-7-1991 is not only frivolous but conveys false reasons to the complainant. Under these circumstances, we find that the order passed by this commission dated 3-8-1993 do not suffer from any infirmity and hence we allow this complaint and pass the following order, holding that there has been deficiencies in the service of the O.P. in as much as there has been inordinate delay in rejecting of complainants claim. ORDER 7. The complaint is allowed. The O.P. M/s. National Insurance Company Ltd. is directed to settle the complainants insurance claim for Rs. 8,92,824/- together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum towards the compensation for the period commencing from 1-7-1991 till realisation. The complainant also be paid Rs. 1,000/- as cost of this complaint. The aforesaid amounts be paid to the complainant within 30 days from the receipt of this order failing which, the entire amounts will carry interest at the rate of 18% p.a. till realisation. Complaint allowed. *****