Petitioner was the complainant before the District Forum.  Petitioner started business as super-stockist of Add-Gel pens at Zirakpur in May 2001.  Petitioner was supplying the Add-Gel pens all over the State of Punjab.  In the month of June 2001, petitioner took insurance policy in the sum of Rs.35 lakh of stocks of Add-Gel ball pens, refills and miscellaneous writing instruments lying/stored at petitioner’s godown.  Mr.Dheeraj Sagar, partner of the complainant firm left for Delhi and when he came back on 14.2.2002, he found that a theft/burglary had taken place in the godown.  FIR was registered and the complainant filed insurance claim with the insurance company.  The respondent insurance company appointed a surveyor and the petitioner submitted all the documents in this regard but the insurance claim was not settled.  Thereafter, he filed a complaint in 2007. 

          District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the respondent to pay a compensation of Rs.6,79,293/- to the petitioner within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which the amount was to carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum.  Rs.5,000/- were awarded by way of litigation costs.

          Admittedly, the respondent paid the sum of Rs.6,79,293/- to the petitioner within the stipulated time.

          Insurance company accepted the award and did not carry any appeal to the State Commission.  Complainant filed the appeal seeking payment of the loss at Rs.8,24,838.12p. as assessed by the surveyor and for payment of interest on the awarded amount.  State Commission accepted the appeal and held that depreciation of 10% for dead and obsolete items was not part of the terms and conditions of the policy and hence awarded a sum of Rs.8,24,835.63p.  No order as to interest was made.

          Complainant has filed the present Revision Petition seeking interest on the awarded amount.  District Forum, in its order, did not award any interest and held that the petitioner himself was partly responsible for the delay in disbursement of the compensation, as he had been shifting offices.  This Commission in I(2007)CPJ 3 (NC) – Maya Appliances Pvt. Ltd. vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. has held as under :

“At the time of hearing of this matter, learned counsel, Ms.Aparna Mukherjee, appearing on behalf of the complainant confined the claim to the MODVAT amount and interest at the rate of 18% for delayed payment.  She submitted that there was no justifiable ground for not releasing the amount of Rs.77,71,960/- in the month of March 1997 because the surveyors visited the factory premises immediately and noted down the loss suffered by the complainant.  The only thing which was required to be done was its valuation.  They could have done it easily.  She, therefore, submits that for this delay the complainant has suffered immensely because the creditors or the suppliers were pressing for the payment and the complainant was required to make an alternative arrangement for paying the same by taking loan with interest rate which was more than 18% p.a.  She, therefore, submits that on the basis of the law laid down by the Apex Court, at the most, insurance company can be given 4 months time for settlement.  In any case, she submitted that this was the law on the basis of various judgements in England and in this country.  She further submitted that now the said law is crystallized by passing The Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Protection of Policyholders’ Interests) Regulations, 2002.   Regulation 9 provides the time limit during which the claim of the insured is to be settled.  It gives step by step procedure and the maximum time-limit does not exceed 5-6 months as per the said procedure.  She, therefore, submits that for the delay in making payment, the insured should be adequately compensated. 

At the outset, we would state that Clauses (1) to (4) of Regulation 9 prescribe the time limit during which the claim is required to be processed and finalized.  Thereafter, Clause (5) provides that after receipt of the survey report or the additional survey report, the insurer is required to settle the amount within a period of 30 days.  That has not been done in the present case.  Further, Clause 6 of Regulation 9 specifically provides that if there is delay in payment, the insurance company shall pay the same with interest which is 2% above the bank rate.   The relevant Clause (6) is as under :

(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 seven days from the date of acceptance of the offer by the insured.  In the case of delay in the payment, the insurer shall be liable to pay interest at a rate which is 2 per cent above the bank rate prevalent at the beginning of the financial year in which the claim is reviewed by it.”

          Consistently this Commission has been holding that the insurance company is required to settle the claim within 30 days of the submission of the report by the surveyor as per Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority Regulations and if it is not done then the complainant is entitled to get interest at the rate of 9% to neutralize the effect of non-payment of the amount, as the complainant is deprived the use of that money for that period. 

Since the finding has been recorded by the District Forum which remains unchallenged that the petitioner was also partly responsible for the delay in settlement of the claim, we award interest at the rate of 6% per annum from 1.11.2002 on the awarded amount till realization.  Respondent insurance company would be liable to pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the amount already paid to the petitioner from 1.11.2002 till the date of payment and interest at the rate of 6% on the remaining amount from 1.11.2002 till realization.  Respondent is directed to comply with the above directions within 6 weeks failing which the respondent would be liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum.

Revision Petition stands disposed of accordingly.