JUDGMENT - S.S. CHADHA, MEMBER.:---First Appeal No. 59/94 is directed against the order dated 13-12-1993 of the Gujarat State Commission at Ahmedabad allowing the complaint and directing the National Insurance Co., Ltd. the opposites party to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum after two months after the date of final survey report i.e. 9-4-1991 till payment of actual amount of the insurance claim i.e., 31-3-1992 besides costs of Rs. 1,000/-. 2.The facts are not in dispute and may be noticed. Lal Chand Jain Sons, the complainant before the State Commission had taken three fire policies from the National Insurance Co. Ltd., the opposite party--appellant herein, for a total sum assured of Rs. 55/- lakhs covering the buildings, stocks of goods stored in various godown and machinery as specified in the schedules attached to the said three policies. A fire took place on 9th of January, 1991. The complainant immediately informed the opposite party regarding fire at the premises of the complainant alleging loss of the building, stocks of goods and machinery and claimed damages to the tune of Rs. 55.00 lakhs. The opposite party appointed surveyors who visited the site of occurrence initially on 15th and 16th January, 1991 and thereafter on 15th and 16 February, 1991. The surveyors submitted their preliminary report on 22-2-1991 and the final reports was submitted by the surveyors on 9-4-1991 assessing the loss of Rs. 35,36,393/-. The complainant accepted the quantification of the loss given in the report of the surveyor and it is alleged that he had no other course open. The opposite party after deducting the sum of Rs. 53,019/- towards the difference of premium as also the amount of additional premium for unexpired period of the affected policies and after deducting the same, the balance amount of 34,83,374/- was paid to the complainant on 31st March, 1992. 3.According to the opposite party this amount was towards full and final settlement of the claim under the policies and the complainant accepted the claim and gave a valid discharge in full and final satisfaction of the claim. 3.According to the opposite party this amount was towards full and final settlement of the claim under the policies and the complainant accepted the claim and gave a valid discharge in full and final satisfaction of the claim. The plea taken by the complainant in his complaint filed in July, 1992 is that the opposite party intentionally delayed the payment, that the claim was accepted by the opposite party on the basis of the survey report filed by the surveyor on 9-4-1991, that after settling the claim the opposite party was under obligation to make the payment immediately, that with some ulterior motive the opposite party did not make payment immediately to the complainant, that it was gross negligence on the part of the opposite party and that the complainant suffered heavy loss of interest as the Bank had already collected the amount of interest from the complainant. 4.On being noticed the opposite party took the plea that the claim of the complainant was settled in full and final settlement and the complainant had given a discharge in full and final settlement of the claim and that thus there was no scope for any dispute between the complainant and the opposite party and so the State Commission had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The State Commission in the impugned order posed a question as to whether the complainant can demand interest for the delay of one year and two months from the date of fire. The State Commission opined that the issue is totally covered by two decisions of this Commission in (M/s Asa Singh Cotton Factory v. United India Insurance Co. others)1, 1994(1) Bom.C.R. (Cons.) 4 and (M/s Ajmer Singh Cotton General Mills v. Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. others)2, 1994(4) Bom.C.R. (Cons.) 1 in which cases this Commission repelled the contention that since the claim of the insured had been paid and satisfied under the terms of the policy, the complaint was not maintainable. The State Commission after noticing the admitted facts held that the complainant is entitled to interest on the amount paid to him after two months from the date of the final report and granted the relief as noticed above. 5.We have heard Mr. Yogesh Malhotra, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. M.A. Bhatt, learned Counsel for the respondent in this appeal and have gone through the records. 5.We have heard Mr. Yogesh Malhotra, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. M.A. Bhatt, learned Counsel for the respondent in this appeal and have gone through the records. Section 2(g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, defines 'deficiency' means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service. It is admitted that the opposite party had issued three policies of insurance and covered the risk involved in the fire that took place on 9-1-1991. The service agreed to be performed by the opposite party in pursuance of the contract of insurance in the event of the loss of the risk covered is to assess and quantify the loss suffered and to pay it to the insured. One category of deficiency in service on the part of the insurance Co. is not settling the claim of the insured after the insured had furnished all information and documents required of him either by the Surveyor appointed by the Insurance Co. or the Insurance Co. Yet there may be cases where the claim was settled by the Insurer but there has been unjustified delay, in its payment. There is yet another category of deficiency in service if the claim put forward by the insured is not promptly settled and paid. The inordinate delay in the settlement of the Insurance claim either due to the negligence or unexplained delay on the part of the surveyor or of Insurance Co. amounts to deficiency in service of the Insurer. In cases where the claim has been quantified and offered, the complainant may have been compelled to give a valid discharge to the Insurance Co. who may have coerced the complainant into accepting the settlement of the claim unwillingly or involuntarily. The Insurance Co. will not disburse the amount unless discharge voucher in full and final settlement without protest is given by the insured. The complainant may have no option but to accept the amount offered due to financial constraints or other compelling reasons. The insured may lodge a protest immediately on receipt or soon thereafter. The Insurance Co. will not disburse the amount unless discharge voucher in full and final settlement without protest is given by the insured. The complainant may have no option but to accept the amount offered due to financial constraints or other compelling reasons. The insured may lodge a protest immediately on receipt or soon thereafter. The conduct of the insured becomes relevant on the facts of each case to find out whether the discharge was given voluntarily in full and final settlement or he was coerced into. The delay in lodging the claim for interest for the delayed period may establish that the insured was satisfied with the quantum of claim. If on facts, it is found that the Insurance Co. has been negligent in performing its service or has unjustifiably delayed the settlement of the claim beyond a reasonable period, then the Insurance Co. has to compensate the insured by paying interest on the amount settled and paid. This Commission has allowed interest when there has been inordinate, unjustified and unexplained delay in settlement of the claim of the insured by the Insurance Co. and compensation in the shape of interest at the rate of 18% per annum has generally been granted or the avoidable delay in the settlement of the claim under the policy of Insurance. 6.In (S. Vellinayagam Co. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,)3, 1992(1) C.P.R. 808 the insured had given final discharges of their claims on 4th December, 1987 in full and final settlement but the amount was not paid by the Insurance Co. immediately and the complainants subsequently after giving the full discharge claimed interest. The question decided in that case was that the insured have to suffer financial embarrassment due to paucity of funds and to bear interest charges if they have borrowed from Banks till their claims are settled and that in equity the Insurance Co. must compensate the insured for settling the claims beyond a reasonable period. In the two cases relied upon by the State Commission similar view was taken that when the Insurance Company takes so much time in making payments after the receipt of Surveyor's report, it will amount to deficiency in service. In a recent case (New India Assurance Co. must compensate the insured for settling the claims beyond a reasonable period. In the two cases relied upon by the State Commission similar view was taken that when the Insurance Company takes so much time in making payments after the receipt of Surveyor's report, it will amount to deficiency in service. In a recent case (New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Achar Kumar Garg)4, First Appeal No. 239/93 decided on 3-1-1996: 1996(4) Bom.C.R.(Cons.) 37 relied upon by the Counsel for the appellant that the complainant was non-suited as the complainant received the amount in full and final settlement of his claim. It is urged by the Counsel for the appellant that in every case where the complainant receives the amount in full and final settlement against the discharge receipt, he is not entitled to the grant of interest. The case of Achar Kumar Garg proceeds on its own facts. The facts narrated in the order shows that there was no avoidable delay in the settlement of claim by the Insurance Co. as the Insurance Co. had immediately surveyed and assessed the loss and the complainant earlier consented for settlement at Rs. 1,47,000/- on repair basis and thereafter made a representation to consider his claim on total loss basis and denied having agreed for the said amount, that the essential documents in respect of the vehicle and driving licence were not produced by the complainant on the plea that the same were burnt along with the vehicle and he had applied for duplicate documents and that on these facts it was found that the Insurance Co. had to depute investigators to verify the same. The decision in Achar Kumar Garg proceeds on its own facts. The receipt in full and final settlement on those facts was considered as a complete satisfaction of the entire claim of the insured because the payment was not delayed by the Insurance Company due to any negligence in rendering service on their part. We have given the facts in the present appeal and they establish the negligence of the Insurance Co. in promptly settling the claim. The claim of interest at the rate of 18% p.a. was rightly allowed by the State Commission and is upheld. The appeal is dismissed. We make no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.