JUDGMENT - G.G. LONEY, President:---This is a complaint filed by Rajeshkumar Bajaj alleging deficiency in the service of the National Insurance Company on its failure to settle the complainants insurance claim as regards the damage caused to the truck due to accident. 2. The facts leading to this consumer dispute are that the complainants truck was insured with the opposite party for the total value of Rs. 3,25,000/- under insurance policy bearing No. 270505/6300100 of 1993-94 in respect of Truck No. MH-28/9739. On 14-8-1993, the said truck is alleged to have been involved in a road accident. The police conducted the panchanama at the spot of the accident and the damaged vehicle was towed to Pulgaon for which the complainant alleged to have incurred Rs. 18,000/- as expenses. On 6-9-1994, the opposite party asked the complainant to tender estimate of the repairing charges. The complainant submitted estimate of repair charges. The complainant submitted estimate of repair charges from authorised dealer M/s. Supreme Motors, Nagpur for the amount of Rs. 8,27,474/- on 15-9-1994. The survey was conducted by the opposite party. The complainant persued his claim with the opposite party and also awaited the reply from it but no reply was received. The complainant alleged that he sent three reminders dated 20-10-1993, 30-11-1993 and 6-1-1994 to settle his insurance claim expeditiously. The complainant alleged that he informed the opposite party that he is suffering Rs. 500/- per day as business loss as the truck is not put on road. Finally, the complainant gave a legal notice on 22-2-1994. 3. In response to the same, the opposite party suggested the proposal of Rs. 2,61,000 vide letter dated 22-2-1994. Since the complainant alleged that he was in financial crisis, he conveyed his consent vide letter dated 7-3-1994 accepting the settlement of claim for Rs. 2,61,000/-. Even then, the opposite party did not settle the complainants claim. The complainant again issued a legal notice dated 4-4-1994 to the opposite party asking for the settlement of the claim urgently. Thereafter, the complainant is alleged to have visited personally many time to the Branch Manager of the opposite party at Akola. However, he was given false assurances by the Manager. Finally, the complainant filed this complaint claiming the amount of Rs. 6,61,500/- towards the compensation. The aforesaid amount includes towing charges of Rs. 18,000/- Rs. 3,25,000/- towards the value of the vehicle. However, he was given false assurances by the Manager. Finally, the complainant filed this complaint claiming the amount of Rs. 6,61,500/- towards the compensation. The aforesaid amount includes towing charges of Rs. 18,000/- Rs. 3,25,000/- towards the value of the vehicle. On account of total loss Rs. 12,000/- towards guarding charges, Rs. 1,75,500 towards business loss at the rate of Rs. 500/- per day. Rs. 60,000/- towards interest and amount for mental agony and other misc. expenses. 4. A notice under section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was sent to the opposite party which was received by it but no appearance was made by the opposite party. We, therefore, fixed the complaint for final hearing. We heard the learned Advocate for the complainant on 6-10-1994. None appeared for the National Insurance Co. The complainant has filed his complaint on solemn verification duly supported by the documents viz. insurance policy, valuation of the vehicle, copy of the police panchanama estimate of repairs from the authorised dealer, copies of letters, legal notices etc. on record. 5. Mrs. Padolay, the learned Advocate for the complainant has stated that there is a total loss of the truck as is clear from the spot panchanama which is at Ex. 4 on record. It is stated therein that after the accident, the truck was burnt down and it has become a total scrap. The police has estimated the loss of Rs. 3,40,000/- to Rs. 4,00,000/-. The opposite party vide its letter dated 24-2-1994 has informed the complainant that the Insurance Company has worked out the loss at Rs. 2,61,000/- which was also accepted by the complainant vide letter dated 7-3-1994. However, since the opposite party failed to settle the complainants claim even for that amount of Rs. 2,61,000/- now the complainant has claimed the full value of Rs. 3,25,000/-. The complainants allegations are thus found to be proved from his own verification and the relevant documents on record. On the other hand, the allegations made by the complainant were never controverted by the opposite party by filing the written version in answer to the allegations made in the complaint. Thus, there is no alternative for us but to accept the allegations of the complainant made on verification. 6. Undisputedly the complainants truck was damaged in the accident for which insurance cover was provided by the opposite party for the value of Rs. 3,25,000/-. Thus, there is no alternative for us but to accept the allegations of the complainant made on verification. 6. Undisputedly the complainants truck was damaged in the accident for which insurance cover was provided by the opposite party for the value of Rs. 3,25,000/-. Since, there is a total loss of vehicle, the opposite party is required to settle the complainants claim for the full value of Rs. 3,25,000/-. Similarly, the complainant is alleged to have incurred the expenses of Rs. 18,000/- for towing away the truck and Rs. 12,000/- for guarding charges and Rs. 50,000/- for mental agony apart from other expenses. In our view, since there was a total loss the question of guarding the truck need not arise. Similarly, the claim of complainant for the loss of interest as well as T.A., D.A. expenses as well as the amount of Rs. 50,000/- towards mental agony also cannot be considered since the opposite party is being directed to settle the complainants claim for the full amount of Rs. 3,25,000/-. The business loss at the rate of Rs. 500/- per day cannot be considered as it is based on hypothetical considerations. However, in our view, the complainant is entitled for towing charges of Rs. 18,000/- and the compensation for the delay in settlement of the claim. It would meet the ends of justice if the opposite party is directed to pay to complainant the interest at the rate of 18% p.a. over the amount of Rs. 3,25,000/- towards compensation from 14-9-1993 i.e. one month after the date of accident till realisation. Hence, the following order: ORDER 7. The complaint is allowed. The opposite party National Insurance Company Ltd., through its Branch Office, Akola shall settle the complainants claim for the amount of Rs. 3,25,000/- along with the amount of Rs. 18,000/- towards the towing charges of truck and Rs. 1,000/- towards the costs. The opposite party shall also pay the interest for the amount of Rs. 3,25,000/- from 14-9-1993 till realisation at 18% p.a. The aforesaid amount be paid to complainant within 30 days from the receipt of this order. Complaint allowed. *****