The appeal arise from the judgment and order passed by the learned District Consumer Protection Forum at Shillong (East Khasi Hills) in Complaint Petition Case No.2 (S) of 1995.

 

A burglary took place in the night between 24^th and 25^th of March 1994. The complainant who is also the person insured with the Insurance Company, has lodged a claim before the authority amounting to Rs.38,207/- along with interest. On the failure of the Insurance Company in settling the claim the complainant lodged a complain before the District Forum and the District Forum after hearing the parties and considering the materials on record awarded Rs.25.00/- towards the loss caused due to the burglary. The District Forum also awarded interest at the rate of 15% per annum with a cost of Rs 400/-. Hence the appeal.

 

Mr. R. Sen, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant strenuously firstly submits that on the facts and situations there cannot be any violation or negligence on the part of the Insurance Company in settling the claim. According to Mr.Sen the Insurance Company took up the matter with right earnest and wanted to dispose the claim in accordance with Law, but before the Insurance Company could settle the claim the complainant rushed to the District Forum to settle the matter. According to Mr. Sen there is no deficiency in service attracting the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. Mr. Sen further submits that even otherwise the conclusion arrived at by the Learned District Forum settling the claim at Rs.25,000/- on the Insurance Company as the loss is not justified on the facts. Mr.Sen has taken us through the records pertaining to the case and submits that the loss at any rate cannot exceed more than Rs.14,200/-. Mr.Sen further submits that even otherwise the imposition of interest at the rate of 15% per annum is arbitrary

 

Mr. V.K.Jindal learned counsel for the Respondent, on the other hand supports the judgment, he had some reservation about the quantum arrived at. According to Mr. Jindal the quantum should be have been on the higher side, but he has not assailed the same and he refrained from making any comment thereon.

 

Upon hearing the parties and considering the facts\, we do not find any infirmity requiring our interference. We have examined the materials on record and do not find any other materials to reach the conclusion that the award of Rs25,000/- to be excessive. On the facts situation also we do not find that the levy of interest at 15% per annum date of informing the Manager about the burglary, but, however, in our considered opinion that the complainant is entitled for interest at the rate of 10% per annum from 25.4.1994 and not from the date of burglary.

 

With this modification the appeal is disposed of. No order as to costs.