JUDGMENT : N. NAGARESH, J. 1. The petitioner, a Marine Insurance policy holder, is aggrieved by Ext.P10 Award of the Insurance Ombudsman to the extent the Award denied full refund of unutilised part of insurance premium and interest on the Award amount. 2. The petitioner states that he is Proprietor of an Oil Industry and has been taking Marine Insurance from the 1st respondent-Insurance Company. The petitioner pays insurance premium in advance, which will be utilised for insuring the consignments. Whenever consignments arrived, insured sends documents to the 1st respondent showing the value of consignment. At the end of the year, the total availed insurance amount is calculated on the basis of consignments arrived. Balance insurance premium amount is adjusted towards future insurance policy, treating the premium account as a running account. 3. In the year 2005, the petitioner found that huge amount is lying with the insurer as unutilised premium balance. The petitioner therefore sent Ext.P1 letter dated 22.07.2005 to the 1st respondent seeking refund of Rs. 48,884/- which was the un-drawn balance amount. Ext.P2 reminder was sent on 06.12.2005. The 1st respondent replied, as per Ext.P3 dated 12.12.2005, that no premium is pending for refund under the policy. 4. According to the petitioner, Ext.P3 reply was given by the 1st respondent without verifying the records. The petitioner again verified his records and found that actual amount due to the petitioner is Rs. 50,170/-. The petitioner therefore again sent Ext.P4 letter along with the statement of policy balance and balance statement. 5. As there was no response from the 1st respondent, the petitioner preferred Ext.P5 complaint dated 20.02.2006 before the 2nd respondent-Chief Regional Manager, Grievance Cell. Thereupon, Ext.P6 dated 03.04.2006 was served on the petitioner stating that no amount is found due to the petitioner towards unutilised premium. Aggrieved by Ext.P6, the petitioner filed Ext.P7 complaint before the Insurance Ombudsman on 18.09.2006. 6. Before the Insurance Ombudsman, the petitioner submitted a statement of accounts substantiating his claim for refund of Rs. 50,170/-. The 1st respondent did not submit any calculation statement and instead made an oral submission that they have adjusted the balance amount due for every year towards future policy and that the undeclared amount refundable to the complainant in the year 2004-2005 on the expiry of the policy, was issued in favour of Muzhukkattil Mills which is a sister concern. The 1st respondent submitted that Rs. The 1st respondent submitted that Rs. 9,471/- is the amount paid to the said sister concern. 7. The Insurance Ombudsman found that the sum of Rs. 9,471/- is not paid to the petitioner. The Ombudsman, as per Ext.P8 Award, directed the 1st respondent to pay Rs. 9,471/- to the petitioner. The petitioner thereupon approached this Court filing WP (C) No. 20193/2007 and this Court set aside Ext.P8 order and directed the Insurance Ombudsman to consider the issue afresh, as per Ext.P9 judgment. 8. The Ombudsman again heard the petitioner and respondents 1 and 2. The Ombudsman held that amount of Rs. 50,170/- is liable to be refunded to the petitioner. As regards payment of interest, the Ombudsman found fault with the petitioner for the reason that it is only on 12.07.2005 after one year from the expiry of the policy term, that the petitioner approached the insurer for refund. On that ground, the Ombudsman held that both the insurer and insured are equally responsible for the protraction of litigation. The Ombudsman held that there is no reason to order any interest. However, an amount of Rs. 5,000/- was allowed towards cost. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent. I have also perused the pleadings in the writ petition. 10. Ext.P5 is the claim made by the petitioner before the Grievance Cell. The petitioner has not claimed interest on the amount due, in Ext.P5. Ext.P7 is the complaint filed before the Ombudsman. In Ext.P7 also, the petitioner has not made any claim for interest. A perusal of Ext.P9 judgment of this Court would show that the petitioner did not make any claim for interest, when he approached this Court. 11. From the pleadings, it appears that the petitioner has made a claim for interest before the Ombudsman after the matter was remitted back by this Court. The learned Ombudsman allowed the entire claim of the petitioner and also awarded Rs. 5,000/- towards cost. The Ombudsman found that there is delay on the part of the petitioner in making the claim before the insurer. 12. In such circumstances, this Court finds no reason to interfere with Ext.P10 Award of the learned Insurance Ombudsman. The writ petition is therefore dismissed.