JUDGMENT : Munnuri Laxman, J. 1) In the present Civil Misc. Appeal, the challenge is made to the judgment and decree dated 29.01.2024 passed by the Commercial Court No.2, Jodhpur on the file of Original Civil Suit No.25/2021 (N.C.V. No.23/2019), wherein and whereby the claim of the plaintiff was partly allowed as follows:- (i) The stock damage was assessed to Rs.3,27,46,896/-, building damage was assessed to Rs.59,65,123/-, plant & machinery damage was assessed to Rs.22,48,974/-and damage to furniture & fixtures was assessed to Rs.6,98,759/-. The total damage was assessed to Rs.4,16,59,752/-. An amount of Rs.2,08,30,757/-already paid was deducted and the balance amount payable was Rs.2,08,28,995/-. (ii) The interest @ 9% per annum was awarded from 21.10.2015 to till the amounts are deposited. (iii) The plaintiff’s claim for compensation was partly allowed granting Rs.2,00,000/- and cost was also awar presented the claim before the defendant claiming the foll ed. 2) The present appeal is filed by the defendant-Insurance Company. For clarity, the ranks of the parties as were referred in the suit, is maintained. 3) The plaintiff is a Private Limited Company, which is involved in manufacturing of Handicrafts for export to Foreign Countries. The factory is located in Jodhpur. The plaintiff obtained insurance policy by way of renewal on 11.10.2014. The policy was valid from 13.10.2014 to 12.10.2015. The sum of the insured amount was Rs.6,75,00,000/-, which includes stock value of Rs.4,50,00,000/-, building coverage of Rs.1,50,00,000/-, furniture and fixtures value of Rs.15,00,000/- and plant & machinery value of Rs.60,00,000/-. 4) On 20.04.2015 at about 6 p.m., fire accident occurred in the insured premises due to the short-circuit. Immediately, the information of fire was furnished to the Police Station Rajiv Gandhi Nagar, Jodhpur and also reported to the Insurance Company. The fire services were also requisitioned and fire was put out after 8-9 hours. The Senior Officers of the defendant-Company inspected the spot immediately and Surveyor, Mr.B.K.Modi (DW-1), was also appointed to conduct survey by physical verification of the insured premises. The Surveyor had surveyed for three consecutive dates and prepared the list of damaged and unaffected items in the insured premises. The defendant being unsatisfied with the data collected by the surveyor, appointed another surveyor Mr.A.M.Patel (DW-3) in addition to Mr.B.K.Modi (DW-1) and they visited the premises after 10 days of the incident and conducted survey and submitted a report to the defendant-Company. The defendant being unsatisfied with the data collected by the surveyor, appointed another surveyor Mr.A.M.Patel (DW-3) in addition to Mr.B.K.Modi (DW-1) and they visited the premises after 10 days of the incident and conducted survey and submitted a report to the defendant-Company. 5) The plaintiff presented the claim before the defendant claiming the following amounts:- S.No. Items Amount 1. Net Claim of Stock Rs.3,48,49,597/- 2. Claim for packing material Rs.11,87,074/0 3. Claim for Policy Rs.6,27,517/- 4. Claim for hardware spares Rs.17,68,813/- 5. Claim for raw material Rs.7,35,000/- 6) The plaintiff submitted all the materials available with him so as to substantiate the claim made by him. The plaintiff was made to run from pillar to post. He was called to the Head Office of defendant at Ahmedabad on 06.12.2015 and asked to sign on settlement for Rs.2,08,67,564/-. The plaintiff on account of financial position, could accept the unilateral settlement by signing the voucher sent by the defendant. Later, the plaintiff claimed for balance amount of Rs.3,68,55,323/-. 7) The plaintiff’s claim is that prior to the fire accident, the insured premises was having stock worth Rs.4,79,42,000/-, which the Surveyor refused to accept. However, the stock value was assessed basing on the stock shown in the financial ending of previous financial year and fixed value of the stock as Rs.2,73,63,400/-. According to the plaintiff, during the Financial Year 2013-14, the sales value were shown as Rs.10,03,92,174/-and the next Financial Year i.e. 2014-15, the sales value were shown as Rs.11,09,91,667/-. However, for the Financial Year 2015-16, on account of high export demand, the stock for export sales worth of Rs.18,99,35,538/- made and there is an increase of 71% sales in the previous financial year. Further, the plaintiff has submitted that the stock statement presented with the bank is reflecting stock value of Rs.4,43,78,000/-. Further, the audit report presented at the end of the Financial Year-2015 also confirms the stock value of Rs.4,79,42,000/- immediately prior to the fired accident. The drastic increase in the sales for the Financial Year 2015-16 was on account of bulk orders received from the abroad, which made the plaintiff to purchase more stock when compared to previous financial year. 8) The plaintiff also claimed that while considering the VAT statement, the Surveyor did not consider the value of the stock, which was incentivized and made tax free. 8) The plaintiff also claimed that while considering the VAT statement, the Surveyor did not consider the value of the stock, which was incentivized and made tax free. Further, reduction of an amount of Rs.41,07,184/- in the sales was also wrongly made. The Surveyor arbitrarily fixed the stock value as Rs.3,21,73,379/-at the time of accident and wrongly estimated the stock damage for Rs.1,73,68,774/-. 9) The Surveyor while submitting the report had given a depreciation, which is also wrong and he also included value of Rs.30,00,000/- by considering the seasoning chambers, which are located in the other firm owned by the plaintiff in order to show inflated value of building so as to apply under insurance deduction. The Surveyor also wrongly applied the rule of average basis for the plant & machinery in order to deduct depreciation value. Similarly, deduction of depreciation value on furniture and fixtures covered under the Insurance also incorrectly done. He exhibited the payment by executing vouchers towards final settlement on the financial basis and on account of coercion and undue influence accepted by the defendant and such amounts were received under protest. The plaintiff claimed an amount of Rs.3,68,55,323/-, in addition to the amount already received, with interest under various heads. 10) The defendant admits the coverage of policy and also admits fire accident happened on 20.04.2015 and also admits damage to the insured products. However, they claimed that the amount claimed towards damages of the items insured was highly excessive. The defendant claimed that Mr.B.K.Modi and Mr.A.M.Patel were appointed as Surveyors to conduct joint inspection and they were not individual Surveyors. The claim of Rs.5,76,00,000/- claimed by the claimant was found to be higher side and actual loss was lesser than of that amount. On repeated request made by the defendant, the plaintiff submitted the desired documents nearly after 4 months and there was no clause to pay interim compensation. The defendant denied that the plaintiff was made to run pillar to post. 11) The Surveyors made multiple visit to the place of incident and they have listed out the affected, unaffected and partly affected goods, which were insured and such a list was prepared thereafter. The site was inspected on 22.08.2015 in the presence of plaintiff’s representative. The estimation of damages of the said Surveyors was made on their special knowledge and experience. The site was inspected on 22.08.2015 in the presence of plaintiff’s representative. The estimation of damages of the said Surveyors was made on their special knowledge and experience. On 06.12.2015, the representative of the plaintiff had given consent for the amount determined by the defendant. Subsequently, such undertaking was not followed and after receiving the amount of settlement and by executing the claim of final settlement, in order to gain more compensation, the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff. The defendant denied various amounts claimed by the plaintiff under the various heads. 12) The defendant claimed that the actual building value was Rs.1,74,01,032/- whereas the claim for the purpose of coverage value was shown as Rs.1,50,00,000/-. The percentage of building value is 13.80% more than the insured value and while assessing the damages, proportionate differential value has to be reduced, they justified with regard to such deduction towards depreciation and such approach is correctly made. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the defendant was that the building in which M/s. Saraswati Crafts’ activities were carried out was side by side and both the buildings are part of insured building and the plaintiff was not able to establish that such a building was taken on rent. 13) The defendant pleaded that the value of the plant and machinery was Rs.84,48,574/- and the insured value was Rs.60,00,000/-. It is due to the presence of three seasoning chambers, which were installed by the plaintiff in M/s. Saraswati Craft, that is adjacent to the insured premises, which the plaintiff was continuously using. The claim of the plaintiff that the said premises was obtained on rent, was not accepted and such value was correctly included in the value of the plant and machinery. The percentage of increase was 28.98% more than the insured amount and differential value was deducted towards Under-Insurance, and the salvage value of 10% was taken on the basis of established principle. Similarly, the amount of insured furniture and fixtures was Rs.15,00,000/- whereas value was Rs.25,83,184/-, an amount which was 41.93% more than the insured value. In this regard, the Under-Insurance was deducted and after properly applying the depreciation, the amount which the plaintiff had taken towards final and full settlement, was rightly assessed. There was no coercion and undue influence on the plaintiff to sign on any final settlement voucher. In this regard, the Under-Insurance was deducted and after properly applying the depreciation, the amount which the plaintiff had taken towards final and full settlement, was rightly assessed. There was no coercion and undue influence on the plaintiff to sign on any final settlement voucher. The plaintiff executed such documents voluntarily without any coercion and undue influence and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 14) The Commercial Court has framed the following issues for adjudication:- 15) The plaintiff in support of its case examined PW-1 Rajendra Mehta, PW-2 Raj Bothra and PW-3 Nitin Modi and also relied upon Exhibits-A/1 to A/40. The defendant examined DW-1 B.K.Modi and he also examined in chief DW-2 Krishna Kumar and DW-3 A.M. Patel but they were not available for cross-examination in spite of efforts being made by the Commercial Court for their presence. The defendant did not produce any documentary evidence. 16) The Commercial Court after appreciating the evidence and contentions raised by both the parties has decreed the suit in part granting the various amounts with interest and cost, as indicated hereinabove. Hence, the present appeal by the defendant-Insurance Company. 17) Heard both the sides and perused the written arguments filed by both the parties. 18) The points that arise for consideration in this appeal are as follows:- (I) Whether execution of receipt, voucher and accounts settlement accepting full and final settlement disentitle the plaintiff to claim legitimate compensation. (II) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for various amounts granted by the Commercial Court in partly decreeing the suit under heads of stock value, building damage value, plant & machinery and furniture & fixtures. (III) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the interest on the delayed payment and if so, how much and from what date. (IV) Whether the plaintiff suffered any damages towards physical & mental suffering on account of improper settlement and claim. POINT No.I 19) Learned counsel appearing for the defendant-Insurance Company has submitted that the plaintiff had voluntarily executed the receipt, voucher and other documents accepting the settled amount as a full and final settlement. Having accepted the settlement and executing the full and final settlement, the plaintiff cannot turn back and file the suit claiming over and above the settled amount. Having accepted the settlement and executing the full and final settlement, the plaintiff cannot turn back and file the suit claiming over and above the settled amount. 20) The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff has submitted that the execution of receipt, voucher and other documents showing the acceptance of full and final settlement of amount was under financial stress. Such an execution was not free from coercion and under influence. He also submitted that prior to the execution of alleged receipt and voucher under Exhibit-A/31, there were various communications from the plaintiff not accepting the settled amount. 21) A close scrutiny of the evidence on record clearly goes to show that there was an inordinate delay in settling the claim. The plaintiff suffered massive damage on account of fire and he was under the financial distress. The stocks were pledged with the bank and there is a great amount of stress due to the requirement of timely payment of bank loans. The IRDA guidelines clearly directs the Insurance Companies not to obtain any documents of full and final settlements while settling and payment of claim amount. 22) The position of plaintiff vis-a-vis the defendant clearly indicates that the defendant was in a position to prevail upon the will and wish of the plaintiff and there is presumption of existence of relationship between the parties whereby one party is occupied a position to dominate the other party, the party who could dominate the other party require to establish that execution of full and final settlement is free from undue influence. In the present case, absolutely there is no evidence from the defendant side that the documents were executed by the plaintiff without undue influence. On the contrary, the previous correspondence, in which one of the communication clearly establishes that the plaintiff had not been accepting the settlement of the claimant and according to him, there is huge gap in between the value of the damaged goods and the settled amount. 23) The parties have relied upon various judgments to support their claim. It is suffice to refer to one of the judgment of Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Boghara Polyfab Pvt. Ltd., reported in 2008 AIR SCW 7084, in which the Apex Court had an occasion to deal with entire case law on the similar aspect and ultimately held as follows:- “26. It is suffice to refer to one of the judgment of Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Boghara Polyfab Pvt. Ltd., reported in 2008 AIR SCW 7084, in which the Apex Court had an occasion to deal with entire case law on the similar aspect and ultimately held as follows:- “26. Obtaining of undated receipts-in-advance in regard to regular/routine payments by government departments and corporate sector is an accepted practice which has come to stay due to administrative exigencies and accounting necessities. The reason for insisting upon undated voucher/receipt is that as on the date of execution of such voucher/receipt, payment is not made. The payment is made only on a future date long after obtaining the receipt. If the date of execution of the receipt is mentioned in the receipt and the payment is released long thereafter, the receipt acknowledging the amount as having been received on a much earlier date will be absurd and meaningless. Therefore, undated receipts are taken so that it can be used in respect of subsequent payments by incorporating the appropriate date. But many a time, matters are dealt with so casually, that the date is not filled even when payment is made. Be that as it may. But what is of some concern is the routine insistence by some government Departments, statutory Corporations and government Companies for issue of undated `no due certificates' or a `full and final settlements vouchers' acknowledging receipt of a sum which is smaller than the claim in full and final settlement of all claims, as a condition precedent for releasing even the admitted dues. Such a procedure requiring the claimant to issue an undated receipt (acknowledging receipt of a sum smaller than his claim) in full and final settlement, as a condition for releasing an admitted lesser amount, is unfair, irregular and illegal and requires to be deprecated.” 24) A reading of the above ratio makes it clear that there was regular practice among the Government Department and Corporate Sector to take advance receipts with regard to regular/routine payments. Such a procedure is unfair, irregular and illegal and required to be ignored. In spite of execution of such a document, the insured/plaintiff can espouse the cause for the balance amount. Such a procedure is unfair, irregular and illegal and required to be ignored. In spite of execution of such a document, the insured/plaintiff can espouse the cause for the balance amount. In the light of the above decision of the Apex Court and the evidence on record, we do not find any illegality committed by the Commercial Court while upholding the entitlement of plaintiff to file the suit in spite of the execution of Exhibit-A-31. Accordingly, this point is answering in favour of the plaintiff. POINT NO.II & III 25) The Insurance Policy covers four categories of the insured products (i) stock, (ii) building, (iii) plant & machinery and (vi) furniture & fixtures. The stock coverage is Rs.4,50,00,000/-, building coverage is Rs.1,50,00,000/-, plant & machinery coverage is Rs.60,00,000/- and furniture & fixtures coverage is Rs.15,00,000/-. The defendant did not deny such coverage. The dispute is only with regard to how much insured products were destroyed and value of such damaged insured products. In order to determine the damage under each item, it is appropriate to deal with under various sub-headers. We deal with the firstly stock:- (a) Stock: The plaintiff claimed that on the date of fire accident, the stock value is Rs.4,79,42,000/- and he claimed an amount of Rs.3,91,68,000/-, which is the value of damaged stock. This means the plaintiff is accepting that unaffected value of the stock was Rs.87,73,999/-. There is dispute with regard to value of the stock, which was available when the fire accident broke out. The defendant Surveyors have assessed the value of the stock on the basis of the sales statistics as reflected in the VAT returns for the Financial Year 2013-14 and 2014-15. According to the defendants, the tax statement reflects that the total sales value for the Finance Year 2013-14 was nearly 10 crore and there was an increase of nearly 1 crore for the next Finance Year i.e. 2014-15 and they claimed that there is drastic increase of quantum of sales for the Finance Year 2015-16, which according to defendant is very inflated values and there could not be increase of such value of the stock. The defendant has taken the end stock value reflected in the previous financial years in order to decide what could be the stock value for the financial year immediately prior to the fire accident. The defendant has taken the end stock value reflected in the previous financial years in order to decide what could be the stock value for the financial year immediately prior to the fire accident. The first physical verification was done on 29.04.2015 and 22.8.2015 by two Surveyors. They assessed the value of the damage as Rs.3,21,73,379/- after giving deduction to the unaffected stocks. The Survey Report (Exhibit-A/6) of DW-1, shows loss of stock of Rs.3,52,43,959/-. There is no dispute between the parties with regard to availability of unaffected stock. The plaintiff did not admit the Survey Report. The defendants also did not admit the value of the stock as projected by the plaintiff. According to them, the stock ending in the previous financial year would show the correct stock value. The stock value which the plaintiff projected in the immediate financial year before the incident, were inflated. The Commercial Court did not accept the claim of the plaintiff and also the claim of the respondent. The Commercial Court relied upon stock statement presented to the Bank just 10 days before the incident. In the present case, the Bank Manager was not examined and it is not known whether the stock statement, which is presented by the Bank, was cross verified by the Bank. There is no other clinching material so as to believe the value of the stock as projected by the plaintiff. The plaintiff relied upon the Auditor’s report for the Financial Year 2015-16, which they have filed subsequent to the present incident. There is scope for inflated availability of the stock. Therefore, Auditor’s report and the other documents relied upon by the plaintiff has rightly been rejected by the Commercial Court. The defendant did not try to disprove the bank statement furnished by the plaintiff showing the value of the stock. The stock statement filed with the Bank was rightly accepted by the Commercial Court to come a conclusion with regard to the value of the stock available on the date of the incident. 26) The plaintiff failed to place any evidence to show that he had purchased the stock in between 1st April to 20th April, the date on which the incident occurred. This means the stock value as filed with the Bank immediately prior to the incident was foundation, which was rightly believed by the Commercial Court. 26) The plaintiff failed to place any evidence to show that he had purchased the stock in between 1st April to 20th April, the date on which the incident occurred. This means the stock value as filed with the Bank immediately prior to the incident was foundation, which was rightly believed by the Commercial Court. The plaintiff own admission shows that stock of Rs.87,73,999/-was unaffected, which admission can be gathered by implicit in reflecting the total value of the stock as Rs.4,79,42,000/- and according to him, only stock worth of Rs.3,91,68,000/-. This means, Rs.87,73,999/- was admittedly value of the stock which is unaffected. The value determined by the Survey was not accepted by the plaintiff. Therefore, such amount has to be deducted from the value of stock presented with the Bank. The value of the stock filed with the Bank was Rs.4,43,78,000/- (Exhibit-A/14). Out of that, unaffected stock of Rs.87,73,999/- is to be deducted. The amount come to Rs.3,56,04,001/- 27) Admittedly, no evidence is filed by the plaintiff showing that there was any purchase from 1st April, 2015 to 20th April, 2015. This means the plaintiff was having stock value as retained with the Bank. The plaintiff also did not present any evidence, which he could alone produce with regard to sales transaction for 20 days. The defendant cannot produce such kind of evidence, which can only be produced either by the plaintiff or his purchasers. Therefore, the average sales of previous financial year has to be taken to consider what could be the average value of sales for the 20 days. After taking into consideration the previous total value of the sales divided by 12 months and further divided with 30, this Court comes to a conclusion that probable value of sale for 20 days was Rs.63,94,380/-. This amount has to be deducted from Rs.3,56,04,001/-. Then amount comes to Rs.2,92,09,621/- (3,56,04,001-63,94,380). 28) The Commercial Court has also upheld the deduction of Rs.24,97,688/- towards salvage, which was not assailed by the plaintiff. Therefore, such amount has to be deduced from the above amount. The value of the stock which is damaged, is assessed to Rs.2,67,11,933/- (2,92,09,621-24,97,688). Out of that, Rs.1,68,00,874/- has to be deduced since such amount has already been paid to the plaintiff towards the value of the stock. The balance amount payable was Rs.99,11,059/- (2,67,11,933-1,68,00,874) and not the amount as assessed by the Commercial Court. The value of the stock which is damaged, is assessed to Rs.2,67,11,933/- (2,92,09,621-24,97,688). Out of that, Rs.1,68,00,874/- has to be deduced since such amount has already been paid to the plaintiff towards the value of the stock. The balance amount payable was Rs.99,11,059/- (2,67,11,933-1,68,00,874) and not the amount as assessed by the Commercial Court. We are of the view that the plaintiff is entitled for Rs.99,11,059/- towards the balance value of the stock, which is damaged in the fire. (b) Building: coverage for the building was Rs.1,50,00,000/-. The assessment of actual value of the building was made to Rs.1,74,01,032/- and there is difference of value at the percentage of 13.80. The contention of the plaintiff was that the building covered by M/s. Saraswati Crafts were wrongly included in assessing the value of the building so as to reflect more value than the insured value. According to the plaintiff, such a building was not a part of the insured building and it was independent building, which was taken on record. 29) The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the defendant was that the building in which M/s. Saraswati Crafts’ activities were carried out was side by side and both the buildings are part of insured building and the plaintiff was not able to establish that such a building was taken on rent. The Commercial Court has rightly included the value of such building while assessing the total value of the insured building and rightly found that it was excess than what was actually insured. On appreciation of evidence on record, it is clearly found that the plaintiff has failed to place any material on record reflecting that building was taken on rent more particularly the deposit of rent, etc. We do not find any irregularity in appreciating the evidence with regard to inclusion of site building of M/s Saraswati Crafts in assessing the building value. Such an inclusion is upheld. The plaintiff claimed total value of the building, whereas, the defendant claimed that the building is reparable and the total damaged value assessed by the Surveyor was Rs.59,65,123/-. The Surveyor deducted depreciation value of the building claiming that while the policy was issued for the building, there was no proper assessment of the value of the building and this contention has not been accepted by the Commercial Court. We also find no irregularity in such findings. The Surveyor deducted depreciation value of the building claiming that while the policy was issued for the building, there was no proper assessment of the value of the building and this contention has not been accepted by the Commercial Court. We also find no irregularity in such findings. The reason is that the value of the building was fixed by taking all the parameters as on the date of collection of the premium for the Insurance Policy. Such a depreciation would be justified, in case, the building was insured when the original construction was made and there was an efflux of time permitting them to allow the depreciation. In the present case, the value of the building was taken as on the date of issuing the policy and fire accident occurred within the policy period of one year and there was no scope for deduction of any depreciation, which was rightly considered by the commercial Court. We, accordingly, affirm such findings. 30) There is no dispute that the insured building value was less shown than the actual value. The difference of value comes to 13.80% and according Clause-10 of Insurance Policy (Exhibit-A/3), the defendant is entitled to adjust differential value, in case, the insured’s property is more value than the actual insurance and there is a difference of 13.80% in between the insured value and the actual value of the building. Such the Under-Insurance deduction was made basing on the Clause-10 of the Policy (Exhibit-A/3). An amount of 5,17,277/- is coming towards Under-Insurance deduction and such amount is liable to be deducted from the total value of damaged building i.e. Rs.59,65,123/-. The value of the damaged building is 54,47,846/-(59,65,123 - 5,17,277). Out of this amount, an amount of Rs.32,31,108/-, which is already paid, has to be deducted and the balance amount of Rs.22,16,738/- is payable to the plaintiff. (c) Plant & Machinery: 31) The insured value of the plant and machinery was Rs.60,00,000/-. The actual value of plant and machinery as assessed by the Surveyor was Rs.84,48,578/-. The contention of the plaintiff was that he was running seasonal chambers in the rented premises. Whereas the contention of the defendant was that it is the part of the building value and while fixing the building value, value of three seasonal chambers, which have been found in M/s. Saraswati Craft, were also included and this was accepted by the Commercial Court. Whereas the contention of the defendant was that it is the part of the building value and while fixing the building value, value of three seasonal chambers, which have been found in M/s. Saraswati Craft, were also included and this was accepted by the Commercial Court. There is a difference of 28.98% in between the value insured and actual value of the plant and machinery. As per Clause-10 of the Insurance Policy (Exhibit-A/3), the defendant is entitled to reduce the Under-Insurance liability. An amount of Rs.5,40,427/- has to be given deduction towards under coverage value. The Surveyor report shows that the value of the damaged plant and machinery as assessed by the Surveyor was Rs.22,48,974/-. Out of that, Rs.5,40,427/- has to be deducted and the balance amount comes to Rs.17,08,547/-. The salvage value as assessed by the Surveyor, which was not accepted by the Commercial Court was Rs.3,72,745/-. The scraps of the damaged plant and machinery has some value. Thus, exclusion of salvage sum by Commercial Court is not valid. A sum of Rs.3,72,745/- is assessed as the salvage value of damaged plant and machinery. Such amount is liable to be deducted. Thus, the amount comes to Rs. 13,35,802 (17,08,547 – 3,72,745). Out of that, an amount of Rs.13,24,401, which was already paid, is liable to be deducted. Thus, the balance amount comes to Rs.11,401/- (13,35,802 – 13,24,401). We are in complete agreement with the Commercial Court in setting aside the approach of the defendant in giving deduction for depreciation of the value of the plant and machinery. The reason is same as assigned while dealing with the deduction of depreciation in the building value. Accordingly, this point is partly answered in favour of the plaintiff. (d) Furniture and Fixtures: 32) The Commercial Court assessed the value of damaged furniture and fixtures as Rs.6,98,759/- and the same is the value, which is assessed by the Surveyor. However, there was a deduction towards depreciation and the salvage in addition to Under-Insurance coverage. The deduction of depreciation is unsustainable as rightly held by the Commercial Court, for the reasons that the value of the furniture and fixtures were assessed when the policy was issued, which is within one year. However, there was a deduction towards depreciation and the salvage in addition to Under-Insurance coverage. The deduction of depreciation is unsustainable as rightly held by the Commercial Court, for the reasons that the value of the furniture and fixtures were assessed when the policy was issued, which is within one year. The salvage as accepted by the defendant is also untenable for the reason that there was no usage of damaged furniture and fixtures and they are of no value when they get damaged, so as to give some kind of value to the salvage. Therefore, deduction of such amount was also liable to be set aside. Out of that, the Under-Insurance difference, an amount of Rs.2,69,026/- has to be deducted from Rs.6,98,758/-. Thus, the amount comes to Rs.4,29,733/-. Out of that, an amount of Rs.3,72,582/-. has paid to the plaintiff by the Insurance Company. The balance amount is Rs.57,151/-. 33) The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the defendant-Insurance Company is that the interest awarded by the Commercial Court is on higher side and he also claimed that the recurring of interest anterior to the filing of the suit was not properly done. According to him, the liability to pay interest would arise, if the claim is not settled or rejected within 30 days from the submission of Surveyor report. The Surveyor report was submitted on 17.06.2016 and the interest must commence from 16.07.2016 and not from the date of 21.10.2015. 34) We have gone through the Regulation 9 of IRDA (Protection of Policy Holders Interest), Regulation, 2012, which reads as under:- “9. Claim procedure in respect of a general insurance policy.-(1) (1) An insured or the claimant shall give notice to the insurer of any loss arising under contract of insurance at the earliest or within such extended time as may be allowed by the insurer. On receipt of such a communication, a general insurer shall respond immediately and give clear indication to the insured on the procedures that he should follow. In cases where a surveyor has to be appointed for assessing a loss/ claim, it shall be so done within 72 hours of the receipt of intimation from the insured. On receipt of such a communication, a general insurer shall respond immediately and give clear indication to the insured on the procedures that he should follow. In cases where a surveyor has to be appointed for assessing a loss/ claim, it shall be so done within 72 hours of the receipt of intimation from the insured. (2) Where the insured is unable to furnish all the particulars required by the surveyor or where the surveyor does not receive the full cooperation of the insured, the insurer or the surveyor as the case may be, shall inform in writing the insured about the delay that may result in the assessment of the claim. The surveyor shall be subjected to the code of conduct laid down by the Authority while assessing the loss, and shall communicate his findings to the insurer within 30 days of his appointment with a copy of the report being furnished to the insured, if he so desires. Where, in special circumstances of the case, either due to its special and complicated nature, the surveyor shall under intimation to the insured, seek an extension from the insurer for submission of his report. In no case shall a surveyor take more than six months from the date of his appointment to furnish his report. (3) If an insurer, on the receipt of a survey report, finds that it is incomplete in any respect, he shall require the surveyor under intimation to the insured, to furnish an additional report on certain specific issues as may be required by the insurer. Such a request may be made by the insurer within 15 days of the receipt of the original survey report. Provided that the facility of calling for an additional report by the insurer shall not be resorted to more than once in the case of a claim. (4) The surveyor on receipt of this communication shall furnish an additional report within three weeks of the date of receipt of communication from the insurer. (5) On receipt of the survey report or the additional survey report, as the case may be, an insurer shall within a period of 30 days offer a settlement of the claim to the insured. (5) On receipt of the survey report or the additional survey report, as the case may be, an insurer shall within a period of 30 days offer a settlement of the claim to the insured. If the insurer, for any reasons to be recorded in writing and communicated to the insured, decides to reject a claim under the policy, it shall do so within a period of 30 days from the receipt of the survey report or the additional survey report, as the case may be. (6) Upon acceptance of an offer of settlement as stated in sub-regulation (5) by the insured, the payment of the amount due shall be made within 7 days from the date of acceptance of the offer by the insured. In the cases of delay in the payment, the insurer shall be liable to pay interest at a rate which is 2% above the bank rate prevalent at the beginning of the financial year in which the claim is reviewed by it.” 35) The Regulation 9(5) clearly shows that settlement or rejection of the claim must be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of Survey report or additional Survey report, as the case may be. If such a claim is not settled, there is a liability to pay interest from such a date and they also entitled to 2% additional interest over and above the bank rate prevalent at the beginning of financial year, in which the claim is reviewed by it. In the light of the above provisions, the contention raised by counsel for the defendant is well founded. Accordingly, we accept such contentions. The liability to pay interest would arise from the date of 16.07.2016 and not from the date as granted by the Commercial Court. The prevalent rate of interest in the Financial Year of 2016 as per the RBI Guidelines was 7% and as per the Regulations, 2002, 2% additional interest has to be granted. This means the appropriate interest is 9%. The fixation of 9% interest appears to be very reasonable in the above background. As far as Section 34 of CPC in a normal non-commercial transaction, the interest during the pendency of the suit is 6%. However, when it is relating to commercial transaction, the rate of interest as agreed in the transaction has to be paid. The fixation of 9% interest appears to be very reasonable in the above background. As far as Section 34 of CPC in a normal non-commercial transaction, the interest during the pendency of the suit is 6%. However, when it is relating to commercial transaction, the rate of interest as agreed in the transaction has to be paid. This means the same 9% interest is required to be awarded during the pendency of the suit proceedings. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for the interest on the balance amount @ 9% per annum from 16.07.2016 till the date of deposit. Accordingly, the above issues are answered. POINT NO.IV: 36) The Commercial Court awarded Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation. The award of such compensation is for causing mental & physical harassment. Even there is a contentious issues in between the parties with regard to quantum of damages merely because the claim was not accepted as projected by the defendant, do not amount to causing of any physical and mental harassment. The Commercial Court wrongly awarded an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for delay in settlement of case. Other reason is that non-payment within time entails entitlement of interest additionally also over and above the rate of bank interest, which is already granted. Therefore, additional compensation was incorrectly granted by the Commercial Court. The same is liable to be rejected. 37) In the result the Civil Misc. Appeal is partly allowed as follows:- (i) The plaintiff is entitled to the following amounts under different heads: S.No. Item Amount 1. Stock Rs.99,11,059/- 2. Building Rs.22,16,738/- 3. Plant & Machinery Rs.11,401/- 4. Furniture & Fixtures Rs.57,151/- Total Rs.1,21,96,349/- (ii) Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the Commercial Court is reduced to the amount of Rs.1,21,96,349/- and the plaintiff shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 16.07.2016 till the date of deposit. (iii) The grant of compensation towards physical and mental harassment is set aside. (iv) In the circumstances, no costs. 38) Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.