1. This is a complaint alleging deficiency in service against the National Insurance Company Ltd. contending that once the loss assessment made by the Surveyor had been finalized, and accepted by the Complainant, then successive reductions by the surveyor at the instance of the Insurance Company are unjustified in the circumstances of the present case. This action is alleged as an unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. 2. The undisputed facts are that the Complainant acquired a Fire & Special Perils Insurance Policy, the duration whereof was from 13.05.2011 to 12.05.2012. The total sum insured was Rs.29,00,00,000/- covering the risk of stocks, buildings, furniture, fixtures and fittings of the unit. 3. The Complainant is a manufacturer of batteries and unfortunately, in the night of 17th November 2011, a fire occurred in the unit that is insured which spread to a large extent causing severe damage to the building, machinery, electrical installations, stocks as well as the furniture and fixtures. The intimation was immediately given to the Insurance Company on the date of the incident itself and the Surveyor appointed by the Insurance Company visited the affected premises and carried out the Survey on 19th, 20th and 21st November 2011. 4. The Complainant submitted a claim stating a loss of Rs.14,40,24,036/- with item-wise details in respect of the loss on account of damage to buildings, stocks and furniture etc. 5. The surveyor, upon a calculation of the loss, sent his report assessing the entire net loss on all the heads after deducting salvage value, less under insurance, less head stock and less excess. The amount assessed by the Surveyor was Rs.10,73,94,087/-. The surveyor Mr. Sanjay Dwivedi also initiated the salvage disposal that was conducted under him and the net loss as assessed on 06.08.2012 after carrying out deductions was assessed by him on 20.12.2012 as 8,95,93,585/-. 6. This assessment was made and vide email dated 20.12.2012, the Complainant was called upon to give his consent to the same. 7. The Complainant sent back a response indicating the calculations as per the Complainant including the calculation on stocks and the three storied building where-after the surveyor, on 22.12.2012 mailed back to the complaint for consent. It may be pointed out that the Complainant in order to avoid any further prolonging of the issue sent his consent on 20.12.2012 for a sum of Rs.8,95,93,585/-. The consent letter is extracted herein under:- “20.12.2012 To, M/s Sanjay Dwivedi & Associates, IIIA/135, Rachna, Vaishali, Distt Ghaziabad 201010 Sub: Fire Claim A/c Fujikawa Power Dear Sir, With reference to you email dated 20th Dec 2012 quantifying our final loss due to fire on 16.11.2011 in our factory at Village Handa Kundi, Nalagarh. Solan, H.P. amounting Rs.89593585/-, we hereby give consent of the same. Please take a note of it and proceed further in the matter in order to realization of our above claim amount from M/s National Insurance Company Limited. Thanking you, For Fujikawa Power, Authorized Signatory” 8. The surveyor had demanded certain papers which were given and then certain more information was sought. The Complainant requested the Insurance Company to deal with the matter finally as the claim was pending resulting in further hindrances in the running of the unit. 9. It appears that in the year 2013, the Insurance Company obtained some report from the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Roorkee regarding the assessment of the damage to the building and the proposal for repairs. The Complainant was also called upon to assess and assist in respect of the correct assessment of the loss in buildings and the repairs that could be carried out. A report was obtained from NITTR indicating its opinion on the re-assessment of damage to the buildings. 10. A meeting was conducted on 18.11.2013 where the major damage to the three storied RCC building was discussed and the Insurance Company opined that the building was repairable and therefore, the Complainant was asked to submit repair estimates of the building for consideration. 11. The Complainant tendered whatever information was necessary and it appears that the insurers received an addendum survey report dated 08.03.2014. The Complainant alleges that even though the Complainant had been consulted earlier but they were never made aware of / about any outcome of the said discussion. The addendum report, which is dated 08.03.2014, was never supplied to them nor the Complainant was made aware of the same either before or thereafter. None the less the Complainant received a email dated 07.03.2014 from the surveyors to give consent for receiving a reduced amount of Rs.8,32,00,000/- as full and final claim in respect of the damages. The said e-mail is extracted herein below: “On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 2:35 PM, SANJAY DWIVEDI & ASSOCIATES <nrsdwivedi@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Sir This is in reference to the captioned claim and your discussion with us and subsequently with National Insurance Co Ltd, RO Chandigarh and as discussed, kindly give your consent for loss due to fire for Rs 8.32 Crores. On receipt of your consent, we will issue our addendum report to insurers. Please give your consent on your letterhead and can mail us signed and stamped scanned copy of same and send the original by post. Regards Sanjay Dwivedi” 12. To the said offer, the Complainant sent his consent on 08.03.2014, which is extracted herein below: “From: NKS <vp.fbet@okay@poweritd.com> Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2014 6:45 PM To: ‘SANJAY DWIVEDI & ASSOCIATES’ Subject: RE:FUJIKAWA FIRE INSURANCE CLAIM- CONSENT REGARDING Sir Claim amount of Rs 8.32 Cr is acceptable and ok. Please note and proceed accordingly. Thnxs, Nk singhal Fujikawa Power, Consent Village Handa Kundi, Nalagarh, H.P.” 13. This was done by the Complainant in the hope that atleast they would honour their commitment but the Insurance Company did not indemnify the Complainant as per the aforesaid revised assessment by the surveyor. 14. It seems that another addendum report was obtained by the insurers after arranging a meeting at the Regional Office of the Insurance Company on 14.03.2014. The second addendum report titled as Addendum Report-2 appears to have been tendered by the same surveyor on 16.03.2014 after being prepared behind the back of the Complainant about which no information was given and accordingly, the Complainant vide e-mail dated 20.03.2014 on being informed of this 2nd offer reducing the loss to Rs.8,15,00,000/-, consented to the same vide letter dated 14.03.2014. The contents of this letter are extracted herein below: “Dated: 14th March, 2014 To, SANJAY DWIVEDI & ASSOCIATES SURVEYORS, LOSS ASSESSORS, INVESTIGATORS & VALUERS IIIA/135, RACHNA, VAISHALI DISTT:GHAZIABAD 201010 Dear Sir, Sub: Consent for acceptance of claim amount in respect of fire claim at Fujikawa power. With reference to our fire Insurance claim of Fujikawa Power, Village-Handakundi, Nalagarh, H.P. and our today meeting in National Insurance Company Limited, CRO, Chandigarh we hereby give our consent to fire Insurance claim amount of Rs.815 lacs as per your survey report. Please take a note of it and proceed further in the matter in sending your final surveyor report to National Insurance Company Limited respective offices.” 15. Thus a successive second reduction was made by the surveyor to which a consent was given by the Complainant yet again in the hope that the claim would finally stand disposed off and settled. 16. It seems that the insurers further intended to keep on reducing the amount by unilaterally obtaining and adopting one reasoning or the other, and once again a telephonic message was received this time from the Insurance Company to settle the claim for Rs.8,08,24,713/-. This telephonic message was responded to by the Complainant on 07.11.2014 giving its consent in the following terms:- “November 07, 2014 To National Insurance Company Limited Division Office-III Queen's Road, Amritsar Punjab Sub: Settlement of Fire Claim-Fujikawa Power Ref: Insurance Policy No. 404400/11/11/3300000093 Sir We hereby agree to accept Rs.8,08,24,713/- (Rs. Eight Crore Eight Lacs Twenty Four Thousands Seven Hundred Thirteen only) in full and final settlement of our fire claim which occurred on 17th November 2011 at our plant situated at Fujikawa Power Village Handa Kundi, Nalagarh Road, Baddi District Solan, Himanchal Pradesh. Thanking you, Yours truly For Fujikawa Power Authorised Signatory For FUJIKAWA POWER” 17. Thus, with this third reduction unilaterally imposed by the Insurance Company which was obviously in a dominant position, was accepted by the Complainant. 18. The question raised therefore is, can the Insurance Company compel and coerce a claimant to accept a lower claim as originally assessed by the surveyor without intimating the Complainant as to the reasons for such reduction. 19. Mr. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the Complainant contends that such a course is impermissible for the insurance company in as much as the IRDA Regulations 2002 require the survey to be completed within one month and if any further investigation is to be carried out, the same should not travel or exceed beyond six months. He submits that in the instant case, the surveyor report was already prepared on 20.12.2012 for a sum of Rs.8,95,93,585/- that had been accepted by the Complainant through email dated 22.12.2012. The Insurance Company, however, not being satisfied with regard to the calculation on the cost of repairs of the building, called for subsequent reports for which there was no valid justification for reduction. This exercise of creating compelling circumstances to accept the amount assessed by the surveyor is a clear deficiency in service as it is a continuous harassment to a consumer in rendering services with regard to dispensation of an insurance claim. 20. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Complainant that there was no material or substance available nor was it made known to the Complainant at any stage about the proposed reduction by way of amendment through any addendum so as to enable the Complainant to answer any proposed reduction. All the calculations were made unilaterally, which the Complainant accepted in the background that it had already suffered a huge loss and the company had no option but to seek shelter of this Commission. 21. Accordingly, the present complaint was filed and the Opposite Party were issued notice that was served on the Insurance Company on 14.09.2015. In spite of service of notice, no written version was filed and the right to file the written version was closed on 06.11.2015. Aggrieved by the said closure, the Insurance Company moved a recall application, which was considered and rejected by the Commission on 18.12.2015. Against this order, the Insurance Company approached the Hon’ble Apex Court by filing a Special Leave Petition that was dismissed on 20.02.2016. A review application was filed before the Apex Court on which, notices were issued on 13.05.2016 and also directing the Insurance Company to deposit a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The said amount was deposited and the issue with regard to the mandatory status of the Rule providing for only, 30 + 15 (45 days) for filing of written version was considered and was finally upheld by the Constitution Bench vide judgment dated 04.03.2020 that if the written version is not filed within 30 days of the statutory period provided in the Consumer Protection Act, then, and further is not tendered within 15 days with a delay condonation application, the right to file written version would stand forfeited. With the pronouncement of Constitution Bench’s judgment, the review application, and the interim orders passed therein, came to be dismissed on 15.12.2020 with a direction that the present complaint be disposed off by this Commission within the period indicated therein. 22. The situation, therefore, that emerges is that the Insurance Company forfeited its right to file the written version. It may be mentioned that the Insurance Company had attempted the filing of the written version after the expiry period on 02.12.2015, which is on record but the same was rejected on 18.12.2015. Along with the said written version, the Opposite Party had filed the two addendum reports by the surveyor, but in view of the rejection of the application moved by the OP on 18.12.2015 and the dismissal of their SLP as well as their review application, no part of its written version could be looked into by this Commission. 23. The Insurance Company, however, attempted to file additional documents again seeking to bring on record the very same addendum report that was dismissed and rejected by this Commission vide order dated 14.12.2022. Thus in the above circumstances, no amount of evidence or pleading of the Insurance company can be looked into in the present complaint as the order the order forfeiting the right of the Insurance Company to file a written version has become final with the orders passed and referred to herein above. 24. The Complainant company seems to have changed the name of its entity and has been again incorporated and registered with a new name, namely, Okaya Fujikawa Power Pvt. Ltd. and a certificate of incorporation has been issued by the Deputy Registrar of Companies, that has been filed on record. This change was allowed on 21.11.2023 by this Commission and the amended memo has already been filed. The office shall take note of the same and necessary corrections shall be carried out in the description of the Complainant. 25. In the above background, it is only the complaint and the evidence filed by the Complainant which is on record. 26. Learned Counsel for the Opposite Party –Insurance Company relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Balraj Taneja and Another Versus Sunil Madan and Anr. (1999) 8 SCC 396, paragraphs 29-30, urged that non-filing of a written statement does not resolve the controversy and on the other hand does not give any undue advantage to the Complainant because on the basis of the plaint allegations itself it is more than evident that all suggestions made by the surveyor extending reductions in the assessment of the loss were duly consented to and have been accepted by the Complainant. It is, therefore, submitted that once the claim was finalized by the Insurance Company and accepted by the Complainant on 07.11.2014, then that is final. It is urged that in the instant case, the reductions on previous occasions were proposals on behalf of the Insurance Company that were voluntarily accepted by the Complainant without any demur or protest but they were awaiting finalization by the Insurance Company. It is, therefore, submitted that the filing of the complaint is without any basis and the final offer by the Insurance Company was the only offer made by it, which has also been accepted by the Complainant on 07.11.2014. It is also submitted that there is no error or malafides or any compulsion created by the Opposite Party to put the Complainant to any undue dis-advantage. The submission of the Learned Counsel for the Insurance Company is that the Complainant having consented to the reductions, it cannot be permitted to turn around and file a complaint for reversal of the voluntary acceptance by the Complainant. 27. It is urged that the value of the loss of the building as also the calculation in respect of the stock had to be re-determined in as much as a report was received from Roorkee IIT which stands reflected in the addendum reports. The calculation regarding stocks was claimed by the Complainant on the higher side with the cost index suggested by NITTR @25%, whereas the correct the correct cost index has been supplied by the surveyor @8%. The contention is that the addendum reports are not without foundation and have been prepared and submitted on 08.03.2014 and 16.03.2014 after discussions with the Complainant. In these circumstances, the submissions raised by the learned Counsel for the complainant deserves to be rejected and the complaint deserves to be allowed. 28. Mr. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the Complainant submits that the only information that was sought from the Complainant in 2013, was tendered to them but thereafter, the Opposite Party- Insurance Company never informed about any addendum reports about which arguments have been advanced by the Opposite Party. This fact of the addendum reports having not been supplied to the Complainant has not been disputed nor is there any evidence to construe that the copies of the addendum reports were ever supplied to the Complainant. Nonetheless they have no evidentiary value as the right of the Opposite Party to rely on the written version/reply or documents filed later was forfeited that has been upheld inter-partes upto the Apex Court. 29. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, it is evident that the attempt of the Insurance Company to bring on record the written version or any documents is impermissible in law as discussed herein above. The written version which was attempted to be filed was rejected. The second attempt made in 2022 to file additional documents and the addendums was also rejected on 14.12.2022 by this Commission. The said proceedings have, therefore, become final and hence the addendum reports dated 08.03.2014 and 16.03.2014 cannot be read into evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party. 30. The question is that can in the absence of any such evidence, the claim of the complainant, be allowed. The Complainant has urged that the reductions proposed were without any basis and any justification and it amounts to a clear harassment and deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company. 31. From the entire evidence on record, there is not a single document or averment indicating that the complainant had accepted the reduced amount offers under protest. The last letter, whereby consent was given by the Complainant was an offer dated 07.11.2014 and the consent of the Complainant was communicated on 08.11.2014. 32. No protest was raised nor any indication of such a protest is reflected in any of the consents or even after encashing the amount. The amount of Rs.8,08,24,713/- was accepted by the Complainant and a consent was also obtained from the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, who were the Financers, whose consent was sought by the Complainant vide letter dated 01.11.2014 and was accepted by the Bank on 05.11.2014. This request was also sent by the Complainant and which cannot be ignored as the Bank transaction has not been disputed. This acceptance by the Bank was also not followed by any protest or any other claim. 33. It is long thereafter on 02.02.2015, that the complainant sent a legal notice to the insurance company. This legal notice does not seem to be preceded by any protest and is also not in close proximity of the amount received and accepted in November 2014. The Legal notice for the first time raises a protest almost after three months of having accepted the amount as referred to herein above. It is in this background that the claim of the Complainant deserves any assessment. 34. According to the continuous consents given by the Complainant to the surveyor and then finally to the Insurance Company in November 2014, coupled with the acceptance of the reimbursed amount, therefore, does not reflect any intention of resistance to the same. 35. Apart from this, there is nothing on record to indicate that the Complainant intended to sue the Insurance Company for this delay. This complaint itself has been filed on 11.08.2015. 36. However, the fact of the survey report being delayed and revised from time to time does not seem to be in conformity with the timeline indicated in the IRDA Regulations 2002, which provides for settlement of claims within one month, but not later than six months. The IRDA guidelines, therefore, seem to be have not been adhered to but it appears from the fact that the Insurance Company had awaited a certain report from the Roorkee IIT in respect of claim of the loss of the building with information to the Complainant. The Complainant had participated and cooperated with the Insurance Company in 2013 for the finalization of the claim by providing papers as were necessary. Therefore, there was no delay on the part of the Complainant nor any such malafide can be attributed to the Complainant in as much as it is the Insurance Company which went in for a fresh assessment regarding the stocks and the machinery. What was more pressing for the Complainant was the waiting period even thereafter. The reason is that the addendum reports were also submitted in March 2014 and the Insurance Company finally delayed the disbursal till November 2014. Thus the Surveyor and the Insurance Company both did not act fairly in discharging their obligations. This is deficiency in service and also an unfair trade practice. The non-supply of the addendum reports also do not justify the action of the Insurance Company at all. 37. Having considered the submissions as well as the documents on record, there is no dispute about the incident of fire and its occurrence as well as loss suffered on that count. The damage to the building, stocks and furniture etc. were all noted and deliberated upon by the surveyor and then after the entire assessment of the loss, the claim was recommended and finalized after deductions for payment to the Complainant on 20.12.2012 for Rs.8,95,93,585/-. This assessment made by the Surveyor was communicated to the Complainant for his consent which was tendered to the Surveyor that has been extracted in Para-7 hereinabove. 38. The said consent along with other certain papers and information was forwarded to the Insurance Company and the Complainant made a request for its finalization. 39. The Insurance Company seems to have analyzed the same and it appears that they had some doubt about the assessment of damage to the building and proposal for its repairs. On that count, a report was obtained from IIT Roorkee in 2013. The Complainant had also been called upon to submit his assessment regarding the damage to the building and to furnish his claim. The Complainant obtained a report from NITTR that was discussed in the meeting conducted on 18.11.2013. 40. Thereafter, the insurer received an addendum report on 08.03.2014 and 2nd addendum on 16.03.2014. This exercise of obtaining addendum reports was never informed to the Complainant nor were they given such reports. They were never informed of any assessment being made by the Insurance Company on the basis of such reports. 41. It appears that on the instructions of the Insurance Company, the surveyor sent an email dated 07.03.2014 to the Complainant reducing the amount earlier offered to the tune of Rs.8,32,00,000/- only. This amount had been drastically reduced by approximately Rs.63 Lakhs. The reduction seems to have made on account this reassessment of loss of building after having a recalculation made upon the report obtained by the Insurance Company from Roorkee, IIT. The value of the loss of stock was also altered a bit as the calculation made by the Surveyor was on a cost index of 8% whereas the cost index of 25% had been suggested in the report of NITTR as relied by the complainant. It appears that on account of the aforesaid recalculation on separate parameters that resulted in the reduction of the amount offered on the second occasion by the Surveyor referred to hereinabove. This revised offered was again from the Surveyor which has been extracted in Para-11 hereinabove. 42. The Complainant however did not challenge the said calculation and again sent an acceptance/consent on 08.03.2014 for receiving the amount of Rs.8.32 Crore as suggested by the Surveyor. The said consent letter is extracted in Para-12 hereinabove. 43. The Insurance Company seems to have again arranged a meeting at the Regional Office of the Insurance Company on 14.03.2014 and a decision appears to have been taken for further reducing the amount to Rs.8,15,00,000/-. This time the reduced offer was intimated again through the Surveyor to which the Complainant sent a consent on 14.03.2014 which is extracted in Para-14 hereinabove. While giving this consent, the Complainant urged the Surveyor to submit his final survey report, so as to resolve the controversy finally. 44. In spite of this consent having been given by the Complainant to the surveyor, the Insurer directly sent a telephonic message to the Complainant to settle the claim for Rs.8,08,24,713/-. This was for the first time that the Insurance Company directly communicated with the Complainant with the offer, that too even telephonically, which was accepted by the Complainant and again a fresh consent was given on 07.11.2014. This consent was directly sent by the Complainant to the Insurance Company which has been extracted in Para-15 hereinabove. 45. As noted above, the Insurance Company had forfeited its right to file any Written Version and there is no rebuttal of the allegations regarding these unilateral decisions taken by the surveyor of the Insurance Company for reducing the amount one after the other in quick succession. There is no reason given at-least for the last two reductions to the tune of Rs.8,15,00,000/- and then finally by the Insurance Company itself to Rs.8,08,24,713/-. There is no justification available on record, once the addendum report had been submitted on 08.03.2014. The second addendum report was obtained on 16.03.2014 by the same Surveyor whereafter the amount was reduced to Rs.8,15,00,000/-. It is not understood as to what prompted the Insurance Company to reduce the said amount after the second addendum report further to Rs.8,08,24,713/-. This calculation and recalculation made by the Insurance Company or by the Surveyor remains unexplained with no evidence. The final amount of Rs.8,08,24,713/- is not supported by any calculation or reasoning as is evident because the same was on a telephonic message that remains unrebutted. No facts or figures available for this reduction yet the Complainant gave its consent for accepting the said amount on 07.11.2014. The said recalculations seem to be confined to the loss of buildings and stocks without mentioning the loss of furniture. 46. From the aforesaid facts, it is probable the Insurance Company was not sure on the calculations tendered by the Surveyor and the Complainant in the hope of settling the matter and get over this ordeal, ultimately accepted the amount that was finally offered telephonically. This sort of procedure adopted by the Insurance Company appears to be unjust. The Surveyor has a responsibility to carry out these functions and obligations promptly and in accordance with IRDA guidelines for assessing the loss. In the instant case, the same Surveyor has revised his opinion thrice and seems to have tendered them acquiescing to the deliberations of the Insurance Company. This was possibly because the Insurance Company was attempting for reductions in the amount that was earlier assessed at a higher value. The Insurance Company is also regulated by the IRDA regulations and a reasonable period is available to them to finalize their assessment and submit reports to enable the Insurance Company to act upon. An Insurance Claim can only be settled after the submission of a report in terms of Sec. 64 UM of the Insurance Act, 1938. The manner in which the settlement in the present case has been made by the successive reductions indicates a trend of an unfair treatment that does not deserve to be encouraged. Successive bargaining with no options to the insured might end up in an unfair trade practice. 47. The Complainant however did not protest the reductions made and whenever any offer was made, the Complainant accepted it without any demur. In this view of the matter, the issue relating to the reduction made in the claim regarding the building and the reduction in the claim with regard to stocks on account of the reduced cost index applied by the Surveyor seems to have not been protested. The fact however remains that for obtaining the subsequent report from the Surveyor namely addendum-I and addendum-II reports, the Complainant was never taken into confidence or allowed to participate in the proceeding. Nonetheless, the Complainant acquiesced to the offer made by the Surveyor then finally by the Insurance Company itself. 48. There is another argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the Opposite Party-Insurance Company on the strength the provisions of Order 8 Rule 10 CPC and Order 12 Rule 6 thereof to contend that even if the Written Statement had not been filed or is rejected, the factual controversy has to be resolved as it is alive. It is urged that if the plaint allegations remain unrebutted then too the Court has to assess the validity and legality of the claim and not take the plaint allegations for granted. The discretion therefore has to be also exercised even if the facts are admitted, as, facts need to be proved by the Complainant before any relief is granted. The aforesaid contention on principle appears to be correct as the learned Counsel has cited the decision in the case of Balraj Taneja and Another Vs. Sunil Madan and Anrother, (1999) 8 SCC 396, whereafter discussing Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act and the provision of Order 8 Rule 10 CPC, the Apex Court opined under Para-29 as follows: “29. As pointed out earlier, the court has not to act blindly upon the admission of a fact made by the defendant in his written statement nor should the court proceed to pass judgment blindly merely because a written statement has not been filed by the defendant traversing the facts set out by the plaintiff in the plaint filed in the court. In a case, specially where a written statement has not been filed by the defendant, the court should be a little cautious in proceeding under Order 8 Rule 10 CPC. Before passing the judgment against the defendant it must see to it that even if the facts set out in the plaint are treated to have been admitted, a judgment could possibly be b passed in favour of the plaintiff without requiring him to prove any fact mentioned in the plaint. It is a matter of the court's satisfaction and, therefore, only on being satisfied that there is no fact which need be proved on account of deemed admission, the court can conveniently pass a judgment against the defendant who has not filed the written statement. But if the plaint itself indicates that there are disputed questions of fact involved in the case regarding which two different versions are set out in the plaint itself, it would not be safe for the court to pass a judgment without requiring the plaintiff to prove the facts so as to settle the factual controversy. Such a case would be covered by the expression "the court may, in its discretion, require any such fact to be proved" used in sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 of Order 8, or the expression "may make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit" used d in Rule 10 of Order 8.” 49. However, there seems to be an undisputed area, as no reduction was recalculated or claimed on the loss of furniture, fixtures and fittings. This is to the tune of Rs.9,63,456/- which seems to have not been proposed for reduction either by the surveyor in the addendums or by the Insurance Company. 50. The consent for reduction given by the Complainant therefore cannot be said to be related to this aspect as rightly alleged by the Complainant. Since the consent to the offer was accepted after the revised offer against which no protest had been filed, the acceptance of the amount by the Complainant therefore cannot be reopened insofar as loss of building and other stocks are concerned as it is not an outcome of any established duress or coercion. Even though the consecutive reduced offers may indicate possible duress, it was likely an exercise by the Insurance Company to minimize the claim. In the wake of the fact where consent has been given revising the payment for the loss of building and stocks it would therefore not be appropriate to enhance the compensation as claimed by the Complainant but non-consideration of the payment of loss and damage of furniture and fixtures to the tune of Rs.9,63,456/- deserves to be considered and awarded which has been omitted by the Opposite Party. This therefore is a clear deficiency in service. Accordingly, the claim with regard to the enhancement as prayed for cannot be granted except for the damage caused to the furniture, fixtures and fittings to the tune of Rs.9,63,456/-. 51. Accordingly, this Complaint is partly allowed with a direction to the Opposite Party-Insurance Company to make payment of Rs.9,63,456/- to the Complainant together with interest @ 6% p.a. thereon from the date of the loss i.e. 17.11.2011 till the date of realization of payment which shall be done within three months from today. In the event, the said period is violated the rate of interest shall be enhanced to 9%. | 
