ORDER Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.) President (Oral):- This complaint was filed in the year 1993 and was disposed of by this Commission vide its order dated 24.4.1997. Respondent/Ops felt aggrieved from the said order, preferred first Appeal No. 225/1997. It was a followed by the National Commission in the following terms:- "Both the parties agree that they should also be given opportunity to file additional documents in support of their respective contentions of the case, I think it is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. In the aforementioned circumstances, we are unable to sustain the order passed by the State Commission. The matter is remanded to the learned State Commission for hearing the parties afresh including the new documents, which the parties wish to file as well as the law point raised by the appellant before us with regard to condition No. 15 oHhe policy. Since this is an old matter, the State Commissioner is requested to dispose of the matter at the earliest, if possible, with a period of our months. Both the parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 27.7.2006." 2. After its remand case was taken upon the date fixed by National Commission as was adjourned to 10.8.2006 on the joint request of learned counsel for the parties. On the adjourned date following order was passed:- "After remand of the case supplementary affidavits of Sh. Tej Singh complainant and also Dr. R.K. Gupta have been filed today which are taken on record. Both of them shall remain present for their cross-examination on 29.8.2006 on which date Mr. Sharma submitted that if any counter affidavit is to be filed, needful will be done by his client. It is clearly understood between the learned counsel for the parties that so far complainant and Dr. R.K. Gupta are concerned they shall be cross-examined on behalf of the respondent-Insurance Company on the next date. Office is directed to locate the files/copies of the learned Members and put them with this complaint on the next date of hearing." 3. Pursuant to this order complainant as well as Dr. R.K. Gupta both had filed supplementary affidavits. Both of them have been examined. 4. Case was adjourned to 18.9.2006, when following order was passed while fixing the case on 13.10.2006:- "Witness Dr. R.K. Gupta has been examined today on behalf of complainant and Mr. Pursuant to this order complainant as well as Dr. R.K. Gupta both had filed supplementary affidavits. Both of them have been examined. 4. Case was adjourned to 18.9.2006, when following order was passed while fixing the case on 13.10.2006:- "Witness Dr. R.K. Gupta has been examined today on behalf of complainant and Mr. Goel closed the evidence of his client. Mr. Sharma has filed affidavit of Sh. Satish Saxena alongwith surveyor report and two other documents in hand. Mr. Goel stated that he would cross-examine Sh. Satish Saxena has well as Dr. Dalip Pandits who shall be produced on the next date of hearing by Mr. Ratish Sharma on behalf of respondent Mr. Sharma also stated that on other witness namely Sanjay Sood who had also conducted the spot survey is also witness whose affidavit would not be filed. Since he has left the work of surveyor and has joined some Government service as per instructions received by him from the respondent. He thus submitted that on the next date of hearing he will file-affidavit to this effect also. Keeping in view the age of the case, it is ordered that Mr. Saxena and Dr. Dalip Pandita shall be produced for their cross-examination on the next date of hearing and presence of Sanjay Sood will also be arranged by the opposite party on that day. In case, needful is not done no further opportunity for that purpose will be allowed. Be listed on 13.10.2006 for further proceedings. Dasti copy. (Emphasis supplied) 5. We feel that the above order was in consonance with the mandate of National Commission supra. To ensure compliance with it, Ops could easily seek assistance from Commission to procure the presence of these three persons. 6. None of the deponents of affidavits filed by the Ops were present and in the light of the order dated 18.9.2006 supra, following order was passed on 13.10.2006:- "Mr. Sharma has filed affidavit of Sh. Sanjay Sood alongwith his spot survey report which is taken on record. On the last date of hearing i.e. 18.9.2006 for the purpose of cross-examination learned counsel for the respondent was directed to produce Sh. Satish Saxena and Dr. Dalip Pandita today, similarly for filing affidavit of Sanjay Sood time was allowed with a direction to produce him also today. Sanjay Sood alongwith his spot survey report which is taken on record. On the last date of hearing i.e. 18.9.2006 for the purpose of cross-examination learned counsel for the respondent was directed to produce Sh. Satish Saxena and Dr. Dalip Pandita today, similarly for filing affidavit of Sanjay Sood time was allowed with a direction to produce him also today. When the case was taken up, none of the persons on whose affidavits(s) the opposite party intends to establish its case is present for cross examination. Regarding Dr. Dalip Pandita Mr. Sharma stated that he was informed the Insurance Company that he is unable to appear today and file may be sent to him as this case pertains to the year 1991. Regarding other two, Mr. Sharma stated that despite letters they have not come forth. He prayed for initiating coercive persons, if required for procuring their presence. So far we are concerned, we do not need their presence. In case the respondents want to establish its case on the basis of their affidavits, it was for the respondent Insurance Company to have ensured their persons or to have made a request on 18.9.2006 for getting dasti notices when order passed. In these circumstances, prayer made by Mr. Sharma on behalf of the Insurance Company is declined. Even Sh. Sanjay Sood is not produced today whose affidavit dated 21.9.2006 has been filed. On plausible reason could be given for his not appearing today. We have partly heard Mr. Goel. For continuation list on 3.11.2006." 7. Case was again partly heard on 3.11.2006 and arguments were concluded on 22.11.2006. In this context it may be appropriate to notice that MA No. 1109/2006 was filed for placing on record additional documents, it was disallowed on 22.11.2006. Since proceedings could not be concluded within the time stipulated by National Commission, a request was made for extending the same till 31.12.2006. 8. Admitted facts giving rise to this case are that the complainant was running rabbit farm at village Tharash, in Kullu District for the production of Angora Wool. All were German Angora rabbits. Total sum for which rabbits were insured with the Ops was Rs. 4,01,100/-. Period of insurance was from 25.7.1990 to 24.7.1991. Details of the rabbits insured is given in the schedule A attached with the policy signed by the duly constituted attorney for and on behalf of the Ops. All were German Angora rabbits. Total sum for which rabbits were insured with the Ops was Rs. 4,01,100/-. Period of insurance was from 25.7.1990 to 24.7.1991. Details of the rabbits insured is given in the schedule A attached with the policy signed by the duly constituted attorney for and on behalf of the Ops. Details of age and sex and rabbits are given in this duly signed schedule by said signatory. As per this schedule 87 number adult above one year male German Angora rabbits were of the value of Rs. 1000/- per rabbit, of the same value were 200 female rabbits. 13 number white young rabbits 4 to 6 months were of the value of Rs. 700/- per rabbit, whereas 150 number 4 to 6 months young female white rabbits were also of the same value. Insurance premium was calculated on the basis of market value of each rabbit was charged by the Ops. 9. On the intervening night of 30/31.12.1990, 23 rabbits died. And again of 1" and 2nd January, 1991 rest of the rabbits also died. Intimation regarding death of rabbits was given by the complainant to Dr. R.K. Gupta who at the relevant point of time was posted at Veterinary Officer at Bhuntar, District Kullu. He carried out post-mortem examination of 23 rabbits on 31.12.1990 and copy of post-mortem report is Ext. P-1. Again on receipt of intimation regarding death rest of the rabbits, he went to the rabbit farm of complainant on 2.1.1991. Before that on receipt of information regarding death of these rabbits, he had asked the complainant to make group of 25 rabbits each and give incisions so that post-mortem could be conducted expeditiously. Needful had been done. In respect of this post-mortem, his report is Ext.P-2. As per his advice complainant had got the rabbits photographed which are Exts. P-3 to P-11 on record. 10. Dr. R.K. Gupta had earlier filed his affidavit dated 11th October, 1991 in this case and after remand he filed supplementary affidavit dated 9th August, 2006. These are Exts. P-12 and P-13 respectively. He has affirmed the correctness of both these affidavits. In his statement recorded during the course of proceedings after remand besides other things Dr. 10. Dr. R.K. Gupta had earlier filed his affidavit dated 11th October, 1991 in this case and after remand he filed supplementary affidavit dated 9th August, 2006. These are Exts. P-12 and P-13 respectively. He has affirmed the correctness of both these affidavits. In his statement recorded during the course of proceedings after remand besides other things Dr. Gupta stated that he had certified the fitness of rabbits before their insurance and complainant used to seek his guidance and advise on what medicine to be administered to these rabbits for their up-keep and good health. This doctor was advising the complainant from time to time whenever necessary. He has further gone on record to state that at his, (witnesss) instance complainant also sought consultancy from Dr. Mahajan who was pioneer in the rabbit farming and was a resident of Bhuntar. Complainant also sought Dr. Mahajans advice. 11. In his cross-examination he had admitted that the 450 rabbits were all German Angora and he had issued the medical certificate regarding their fitness at the time of insurance, but he did not recollect the exact number of male, female and kids. On both his visit she had found 450 rabbits which were dead. While he was unable to give the details of male, female and young ones but whatever he found is mentioned by him in Exts. P-1 and P-2 respectively. He denied the suggestion of Ops that besides German Angora rabbits, there were British and Russian rabbits in the farm of the complainants. Rabbits were kept in cages he replied to a question on behalf of the Ops. And according to him in the year 1990 cost of a rabbit was between Rs. 1000/- to Rs. 2500/- as at that point of time there was boom in the rabbit industry. He admitted having not sent the viscera after post-mortem examination, as according to him there was neither any requirement nor any system at that point of time. 23 rabbits had died duty of acute pneumonia and rest had died per acute enteritis associated with pneumonia. He denied the suggestion of Ops that it was necessary to conduct microscopic analyses to come to the conclusion that rabbits had died due to acute enteritis coupled with pneumonia. 23 rabbits had died duty of acute pneumonia and rest had died per acute enteritis associated with pneumonia. He denied the suggestion of Ops that it was necessary to conduct microscopic analyses to come to the conclusion that rabbits had died due to acute enteritis coupled with pneumonia. He however voluntarily stated that with a view to sort out the matter, Branch Manager Mandi was asked to depute some technical person, instead of he deputed a non technical person, as such joint inspection could not be carried out. 12. Complainant Tej Paul Singh was cross-examined at length. He affirmed what he had stated in his affidavit dated 13.10.1993 and supplementary affidavit dated 9.8.2006 alongwith the documents. He also stated that the facts detailed in the complaint alongwith documents he read in evidence. In his cross-examination he confirmed Dr. R.K. Gupta having come to his farm for conducting post-mortem, examination while he was posted at Veterinary Hospital, Bhuntar. What examination he carried out, he (i.e. the complainant) was Qot in a position to say anything from technical point of view. He had reaffirmed his stand that postmortem of the dead rabbits was carried out by Dr. Gupta, thereby reinforced the statement of said doctor. It has also come in his cross-examination that he had handed over the tags to the surveyor appointed by the Insurance Company alongwith post-mortem and number of tags was about 450. However, he was done in a position to give the details as to how many of the dead rabbits were males, females and infants. Rabbits were not ill prior to their death was his reply to another suggestion of Ops. He voluntarily stated that Dr. J.M. Mahajan Former, Head ICAR, Garsa was his consultant who was attending upon the rabbits regarding their vaccination or their dosing. He stated that he did not exactly recollect, but so far his memory went rabbits were being vaccinated by him. He " however voluntarily stated that medicines were being put in the water that was being consumed by the rabbits. He however, denied the suggestion that no proper arrangements were made to protect the rabbits from cold and had taken all necessary steps to protect them and he had undergone training for rearing rabbits. He " however voluntarily stated that medicines were being put in the water that was being consumed by the rabbits. He however, denied the suggestion that no proper arrangements were made to protect the rabbits from cold and had taken all necessary steps to protect them and he had undergone training for rearing rabbits. He also denied the suggestion that the rabbits had died due to diarrhea and dysentery or that tags were not supplied by him to the Insurance Company. 13. Mr. Satish Saxena, Dr. Dalip Pandita as well as Mr. Sanjay Sood were not produced in terms of the order dated 18.9.2006 extracted hereinabove. On 13.10.2006 position remained the same. On 3.11.2006 Dr. Pandita was present but in view of the order dated 18.9.2006 he was not examined. We may clarify that Ops took no serious steps in terms of the order (the appellate order) supra, passed by the Apex Commission for expeditious disposal of the complaint to bring the deponents for cross examination despite clear cut order extracted above. They in our opinion took everything for granted. 14. It is admitted case of the Ops that immediately after incident, on 6.1.1991 it had appointed surveyor one Engineer Sanjay Sood. He had in fact visited the spot on 6.1.1991. His affidavit is filed alongwith his report after remand but he was not present for cross-examination. (Emphasis supplied) 15. Similar in the position regarding other two witnesses namely, Dr. Dalip Pandita as well as Mr. Satish Saxena. Learned counsel for the complainant had specifically asked for cross-examination of these three persons and in view of the order passed (supra), it was the bounden duty of the Ops to have produced them. For expeditious disposal of the case as ordered by the National Commissioner a prayer could be made to get them summoned through process of law. Admittedly - this was not done. During the course of arguments Mr. Ratish Sharma learned counsel for the Ops-Insurance Company made detailed submissions based on the report of the surveyor as well as Dr. Pandita and Mr. Saxena. What is its effect will be dealt with hereinafter. 16. When claim of the complainant was not settled, he got issued legal notice on 1.3.1993. During the course of arguments Mr. Ratish Sharma learned counsel for the Ops-Insurance Company made detailed submissions based on the report of the surveyor as well as Dr. Pandita and Mr. Saxena. What is its effect will be dealt with hereinafter. 16. When claim of the complainant was not settled, he got issued legal notice on 1.3.1993. Stand of the Ops in reply to this notice was that rabbits were over valued at the time of Insurance and complete papers to process the case were not received from the complainants. It was also submitted by Mr. Sharma by laying great emphasis, that unless tags were supplied to his clients, there is no question of settlements of the claim of the complainant in any circumstances. 17. From the materials on record, we are satisfied that there is overwhelming evidence so far death of rabbits which included adults males and females as also infant males and females total numbering 450. Similarly there is no rebuttal of Exts. P-1 and p-2 respectively, the two post-mortem reports submitted by Dr. R.K.Gupta, the then Veterinary Officer at Bhuntar who had conducted post-mortem examination of the rabbits in question on 31.12.1990 and 2.1.1991. It is further admitted case of the Ops that Engineer Saniav Sood was appointed as surveyor to carry out spot survey which he did on 6.1.1991. Similarly photographs of dead rabbits according to complainant and Dr. R.K. Gupta are Exts. P-3 to P-11. In this background we are satisfied regarding death of the rabbits and those having been post mortmed by Dr. R.K. Gupta. A perusal of Exts. P-1 and P-2 gives details of the tag numbers of these rabbits. There is no evidence to the contrary. 18. Mr. Ratish Sharma submitted that all the rabbits were not of German Angora quality, but there were English and Russian rabbits also. We find there is no material on record to support this plea of his clients. Besides this, there is no reason for Dr. R.K. Gupta to suggest something contrary to what he observed at the spot while carrying out post-mortem examination of the dead rabbits. No motive has been attributed to him for giving wrong post mortem Exts. P-1 and P-2. 19. Besides this, there is no reason for Dr. R.K. Gupta to suggest something contrary to what he observed at the spot while carrying out post-mortem examination of the dead rabbits. No motive has been attributed to him for giving wrong post mortem Exts. P-1 and P-2. 19. Best evidence in this behalf in our opinion would have been firstly the proposal form wherein details of the rabbits to be insured would be there and secondly of the person who had signed pages No.1 to 4 of schedule A attached to the policy in question alongwith the fitness certificate issued by Dr. Gupta before insuring the livestock of rabbits. On behalf of Ops, it is clear from the schedule attached with and forming part of the insurance policy that it had taken the market value of rabbits infants and adults as detailed in the said schedule. It is not the case of the Ops that the said officer had over valued the market value of the rabbits on the date of Insurance and no reason is given to discard the same. 20. Even if it be assumed for the sake of argument that complainant got the market value of the rabbits over valued as was argued by Mr. Ratish Sharma, then there was no need to have got 163 number infants both males and females to be shown as such, because then he could have also got these shown as adults. Therefore, to say that the market value of the rabbits at the time of Insurance was got over valued by the complainant is an afterthought on the part of Ops. Another reason to reject this plea is that the Ops had charged premium at the market rate as was observed by its duly constituted attorney and is attached with the Insurance policy, correctness or otherwise of this document was not disputed at the time of hearing. 21. Stand of the complainant is that he had handed over the tags to the surveyor who was deputed by the Ops, whereas latter has denied this fact. Purpose of handing over tags in our opinion is that the animals had actually died and to identify such dead animals tags are put by the Ops. From the trend of cross-examination of the complainant and Dr. Purpose of handing over tags in our opinion is that the animals had actually died and to identify such dead animals tags are put by the Ops. From the trend of cross-examination of the complainant and Dr. R.K. Gupta it can safely be held that what was disputed was not the death of insured rabbits, but it being dur to diarrhea and dysentery and viscera of the dead rabbits having not been sent for its examination. In cross examination of Dr. Gupta further case of the Ops is that analyses etc. was required. Thus in our view that is an additional reason to uphold the plea of the complainant that 450 rabbits as detailed hereinabove had actually died between 30.12.1990 to 2.1.1991. 22. Complainant had specifically pleaded in paragraph 7 of the complaint that all the necessary documents were handed over to the Ops- Insurance Company whereas in reply while disputing this position only receipt of FIR has been admitted. Further in any case copy of the Daily Diary Report No. 11 of Chowki Bhuntar, Police Station Kullu as also the certificate of Pradhan Gram Panchayat, Rot, a joint statement of the people of the area, are part of the evidence in this case filed by the complainant. In these circumstances to stay that the insured rabbits had not died as pleaded by the complainant is not correct. 23. In terms of the order of the National Commission time was allowed to the parties to file additional documents in support of their respective contentions, Ops failed to produce the deponents of the affidavits for their cross examination despite opportunity having been allowed, and as already noted time schedule had to be fixed in the face of the direction by the National Commission to dispose of the complaint within 4 months as the matter was old one. 24. Faced with this situation Mr. Ratish Sharma made an attempt to support his case by referring to the affidavit of R.L. Jain, Divisional Manager of the Ops at its Shimla D.O. According to this affidavit the rabbits were over valued for securing the insurance cover. He had further deposed in his affidavit that company had accepted the Insureds Estimate Value of the rabbits and according to him, it was latter found that the rates of German Angora were Rs. He had further deposed in his affidavit that company had accepted the Insureds Estimate Value of the rabbits and according to him, it was latter found that the rates of German Angora were Rs. 400/- and 500/- each for adult male and female rabbrts respectively and in this behalf reliance was placed on the certificate Annexure R-1 dated 6.3.1991 issued by District Animal Husbandry Officer Mandi. It makes interesting reading and is extracted herein below:- "Annexure R-1 the rate of German Angora is given below:- Cost of male (adult) Rs.400/- Cost of female (adult) Rs. 500/- Signed 6.3.1991 Stamp of District Animal Husbandry Officer Mandi District Mandi (H.P.)" What was the basis of this price per rabbit there is nothing on record. On the other hand according to him no bill, invoice or cash memo regarding actual price was submitted by the complainant. This plea in our view is purely afterthought. Schedule forming part of Insurance policy also negatives this stand of Shri Jain. He in his affidavit has stated that Mr. Sanjay Sood was deputed for 6.1.1991 to assess the loss/damage. Thereafter another experienced surveyor Mr. Satish Saxena was deputed on 17.1.1997. According to Mr. Jain this Mr. Saxena in his investigation / explanation report, ear tags and variation on the higher side about the value of the rabbits and the report further raised apprehension about the loss/damage about insureds claim. Submission of death certificate, post mortem, examination report, ear tags, treatment/dosing charts was mandatory under the terms and conditions of the policy which the complainant failed to deliver and according to him since the insured had failed to take appropriate care of the livestock as per policy conditions or he has made a false claim, the case was closed as "no claim." 25. Even if it be assumed for the sake of argument that post mortem report was not furnished by the complainant as alleged by the Ops, still the fact remains that alongwith the complainant documents were attached which were received by the Company. So far spot survey or Sh. Sanjay Sood is concerned he is an Engineer whereas the present case is related to assessment of claim regarding livestock which is not the field of an Engineer, therefore, his going for spot survey is wholly immaterial. Reliance was placed by Mr. Ratish Sharma on the survey report of Sh. So far spot survey or Sh. Sanjay Sood is concerned he is an Engineer whereas the present case is related to assessment of claim regarding livestock which is not the field of an Engineer, therefore, his going for spot survey is wholly immaterial. Reliance was placed by Mr. Ratish Sharma on the survey report of Sh. Satish Saxena, who is also an Automobile Engineer. He has also placed reliance on the report of District Animal Husbandry Mandi, Distt. Mandi dated 6.3.1991 as extracted above. There is no material on record to suggest that both these surveyors mere also expert in the field of Animal Husbandry. Thus basing their case by Ops on their reports is of no consequence. Faced with this situation Mr. Sharma could not stretch his submission on the basis of reports of these two engineers. 26. Now coming to the affidavit of Dr. Subhash Pandita who is a Veterinary Doctor. He admittedly had not inspected the spot or surveyed the case at any stage, therefore, his affidavit even if it is read in evidence without his having beerf examined does not in any manner improve the case of the Ops. His affidavit is general in nature and in our opinion in the face of the detailed cross examination of Dr. R.K. Gupta who had actually conducted post mortem examination of the entire livestock of 450 rabbits and nothing having been extracted so as to discard his statement, affidavit of Mr. Pandita is of no benefit to advance the case of the OPs. Supply of ear tags by the complainant to the surveyor is also made out from his cross-examination directed by Mr. Ratish Sharma. Pradhan of Gram Panchayat concerned Mr. Purshotam Lai has sworn affidavit in support of the complainant which is at page 90 of the file Annexure P-8. 27. When confronted with this situation Mr. Ratish Sharma learned counsel for the Ops referred to a recent decision of the Gujrat State Commission in the case of Jashubhai Ramabhai Prajapti vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Anr, III (2006) CPJ 43. According to him on the basis of this order even if what is alleged by the complainant is accepted without conceding, still the complaint was liable to be dismissed. We have gone through this decision. Ltd. and Anr, III (2006) CPJ 43. According to him on the basis of this order even if what is alleged by the complainant is accepted without conceding, still the complaint was liable to be dismissed. We have gone through this decision. This decision is of its own facts, in as much as that the tags were lost and description of insured animal did not tally with the dead one, and because identity of the animal was not proved, therefore, the repudiation of claim was upheld. Firstly this is not the situation in the present case and secondly on the basis of evidence on record we have taken the view that after post mortem examination of the entire dead livestock, tags were handed over by the complainant to the surveyor appointed by the Ops alongwith the post mortem report and number of such tags was about 450. In additional to this in Exts. P-1 and P-2, the post mortem repots clear cut mention of tags Nos. Moreover there not rebuttal to the evidence of the complainant. We see no reason for the complainant to have not delivered the tags of dead livestock as his case was to be settled on that basis. 28. Plea of limitation was also raised by Mr. Sharma on behalf of the Ops. However keeping in view the date of complaint, he did not press it further because limitation was prescribed after filing of the complaint. 29. In this case best evidence with Ops was the proposal form, when the complainant applied for getting his livestock insured. It cant be said by the Ops that there is so such form on its records. Similarly no explanation is put forth by them why affidavit of signatory of schedule forming part of the insurance policy, was not produced. Thus adverse inference has to be drawn against the Ops on both these counts. Besides this it is also not the case of the Ops that the authorized signatory had for extraneous reasons mentioned the value of rabbits in the schedule. 30. In the instant case Insurance being admitted and market value having been taken for the purpose of charging premium by the duly authorized signatory of the Insurance Company, and we have held that tags were handed over by the complainant to the surveyor on the basis of the his cross-examination. 30. In the instant case Insurance being admitted and market value having been taken for the purpose of charging premium by the duly authorized signatory of the Insurance Company, and we have held that tags were handed over by the complainant to the surveyor on the basis of the his cross-examination. Details of the tags numbers is also spelt out from the post mortem reports Exts. P-1 and P-2 respectively given by Dr. R.K. Gupta, the then Veterinary Officer, we are of the view that identity of the livestock is clearly established which is the main purpose of providing tags in case of animals. Thus we are satisfied that Ops were deficient in service besides having adopted unfair trade practice by closing the file of the complainant as no claim. For taking this view we place reliance on two decisions of the Uttaranchal State Commission in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Surtu & Anr IV (2004) CPJ 158 & New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kitab Singh 1 (2005) CPJ 412. 31. With reference to condition No. 15 to which a reference has been made in the order of the National Commission while remanding the case, document was not placed on record, and when the case was part heard on 22.11.2006 and arguments commenced, MA No. 1109/2006 was filed for placing on record the certificate dated 6.3.1991 of Dr. R.B. Sobthi, as also Annexure A-2 the terms and conditions of rabbit Insurance policy. Clause 15 is being referred to which is in the following terms:- "(15) If any difference shall arise as to the quantum to be paid under this Policy (liability being otherwise admitted) such difference shall be referred to arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act 1940 as amended from time to time and for the time being in force it is clearly agreed and understood that no difference or dispute shall be referable to arbitration as herein before provided, if the Company has disputed or not accepted liability under or in respect of this policy. It is also hereby further expressly agreed and declared that if the Company shall disclaim liability to the insured for any claim hereunder and such claim shall not within 12 calendar months from the date of such declaimer have been made the subject matter of a suit in a court of law then claim shall for purposes be deemed to have been abandoned and shall not hereafter recoverable hereunder:- 32. Plea based on this clause does not debar the For as under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 from taking cognizance of the present complaint in view of Section 3 of this Act, as the proceedings under this Act are in addition to and not in derogation of any other law for the time being force. Secondly, why this document could not be produced earlier either when repfy was originally filed or after the remand of the case till 22.11.2006 could not be explained on behalf of the Ops. At such belated stage of arguments additional evidence cannot be allowed in view of the two decisions of the National Commissioner in Naresh Kriplani vs. George Abraham and others, III (2006) CPJ (NC) and Sanatan Financier and Real Estate (Pvt.) Vs. Sh. Surinder Singh Ghally & others. 2006 (1) CPR 144 (NC). 33. We would not have ordinarily examined and taken note to the affidavits except that of Mr. Jain but to avoid further remand of the case, we have referred to those keeping in view the direction of the National Commission as also to put an end to the litigation. 34. No other point is urged. In view of the aforesaid discussion this complaint is allowed in the following terms:- (a) that the complainant is held entitled from the Ops to a sum of Rs. 4,01,100/-. (b) Complainant is held also entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from 18m May, 1993 i.e. the date of repudiation of claim by the Ops till its payment/deposit, whichever is earlier; (c) Complainant is further held entitled from the Ops to compensation for undue delay and harassment caused to him due to deficiency in service as well as on account of adoption of unfair trade practice in rejecting his claim without any justifiable cause in the sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- and for dragging him to the litigation for more than 12 years; and (d) Ops are held liable for cost quantified at Rs. 1,50,000/- and for dragging him to the litigation for more than 12 years; and (d) Ops are held liable for cost quantified at Rs. 10,000/- Office will make available a copy of this order to the parties free of costs as per rules.