Mr. Justice S.A. Shah, President — In this case, there is no dispute that the Truck bearing Registration No. GJ/1 T 6516, belonging to the complainant was insured with the — Opposite Party under the comprehensive policy for the period commencing from October 3, 1989 and valid upto October 2, 1990. There is also no dispute that the said truck was purchased at the total cost of Rs. 3,50,000/- and that the same was insured for the full purchase price under the comprehensive policy.

2. On September 10, 1990, that is to say during the subsistence of the policy, the truck met with an accident with another truck near Haldarwa while the other truck bearing No. GJ/6-T. 3750 was coming from the opposite side from Baroda on National Highway No. 8 at about 10-30 P.M. and because of the head-on collision—between the two trucks, the truck belonging to the complainant became totally useless and was treated salvage.

3. It transpires that immediately after the incident, the complainant informed the Insurance Company, and he also lodged First Information before Karjan Police Station on September 12, 1990. It appears that the spot-survey was undertaken immediately and final survey report dated 9th November, 1990 was forwarded to the company.

4. It appears that thereafter, there were some negotiations between the parties and a consent letter was taken from the Complainant on December 5,1990, wherein the complainant had agreed to accept a sum of rupees three lacs, that is to say, rupees fifty thousand less than the insured value of the truck. It cannot be gain said that this letter was by way of compromise and at that point of time, the insurance company is presumed to have agreed to pay that amount to the complainant.

5. Mr. Gohil, the learned Advocate for the complainant states that his client had consented to that course because he was suffering loss of interest as well as business and his client thought that the firm would be entitled to get this amount along with interest. Mr. Gohil has also prayed that a sum of Rs. 2,000/- which the complainant had spent for removal of the salvage at the direction of the Insurance Company, may also be paid to him besides the claim amount

6. No action appears to have, however, been taken by the Insurance Company to arrange for payment of the agreed amount or to remove the salvage for quite a long time and, ultimately, the salvage was handed over by the complainant on or about March 25,1991. The salvage was valued at Rs. 70 to 75 thousand as can be seen from the Surveyor’s report.

7. Thereafter, on April 18, 1991, the insurance company made payment of Rs. 2,97,500/- that is to say, Rs. 2,500/- less since, according to the opposite party, the complainant had not delivered some valuable parts to the company along with the salvage. Mr. Gohil has, however, disputed this claim raised by the opposite party.

8. Considering the facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that:—

(i) the complainant having agreed to accept rupees three lacs by way of the compensation, he cannot now demand interest for the period prior to the agreement, because it was after considering the pros and cons of the matter that the complainant had accepted the offer and had agreed to-take rupees three lacs by way of full and final settlement of the claim;

(ii) If this inference is applicable to the complainant, we do not understand as to why the same cannot be applied to the opposite party also. If the opposite party has caused delay, the company has been using the money which thenceforth belonged to the complainant under the agreement. It is possible — that the company may take little time since the payment power to sanction that amount may be with higher authority; but that does not absolve the opposite party from the liability to pay interest on the agreed amount because the company is withholding that amount and the complainant is deprived of the settled amount

It is under the aforesaid facts and circumstances that we feel that the complain