Mr. Justice A.P. Chowdhri, President— Brief facts giving rise to this complaint are that the complainant purchased 1990 Model Tata Truck and got it registered on 12.2.90. Half body was got made. It was financed by Bank of Baroda to the extent of Rs. 2,62,508/ -. It was insured for the period 7.2.91 to 6.2.92. The Complainant took out the Policy No. 6305111 from the Opposite Party for Rs. 8,50,000/-. The truck was stolen on the night between 5/6.11.91. FIR 282 u/Sec. 379 was registered at Police Station, Baghpat. The truck could not be traced. Untraced report was submitted by the police on 27.2.92. The Opposite Party having failed to settle the claim to the satisfaction of the complainant, this complaint was filed on 1.12.92. The complainant claims:—

(i) Actual price of the truck, as distinguished from its market value on the date of theft.

(ii) Interest on the loan taken from Bank of Baroda as per following break up:—

Value of truck : Rs. 3,50,000.00

Interest penalty payable to Bank : Rs. 1,50,000.00

For mental pain and suffering : Rs. 2,00,000.00

Total : Rs. 7,00,000.00

Interest @ 24% on the above amount from 5.12.91.

2. The Opposite Party in its written version stated that it was liable to pay only the market value of the truck or the amount for which it was insured after deducting the stipulated depredation whichever is lesser. It was further stated that without any delay the Opposite Party got the market value assessed from an independent Surveyor, Rahan Brothers who assessed the market value to be Rs. 3 lakhs. Deducting Rs. 1500/- as per clause of the policy, the Company offered to pay Rs. 2,98,5000/-. The Complainant, however took a rigid stand and was not satisfied with the report of Surveyor. Second opinion of another independent Surveyor, namely Singhal & Co. was obtained. The second Surveyor confirmed the assessment of market value made by the Rahan Bros. The Opposite Party denied its liability to pay interest on the loans and damages on account of alleged mental agony as necessary action was taken without any delay. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.

3. It was conceded by learned Counsel for the Complainant that apart from affidavit of Complainant himself no evidence had been produced by the Complainant regarding market value of the truck on the date of its theft. As against the above, the Opposite Party has placed on second estimated market value of the truck on the relevant date given by two expert Surveyors. There is complete agreement between the two Surveyors with regard to market value. A perusal of their reports shows that they have given reasons for their assessment. The amount was estimated by Rahan Brothers after discussion with one Mr. Parveen representatives of the Complainant. Their opinion, as experts, is relevant as expert opinion. There is no opinion of an expert to controvert the said opinion. For these reasons we accept their estimate of the market value. In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Suresh Arjun Karande, II (1992) CPJ 484 (NC), the State Commission had directed the Insurance Company to pay the actual amount stated in the policy irrespective of the market value. Allowing the appeal, the N.C. held that the Insurance Company was liable to indemnify the insured against the loss actually suffered by him. The present case is clearly covered by this decision.

4. The complainant is not entitled to interest on the loan advanced by the Bank. This is covered by a decision in R. Anthony Doss v. Branch Manager, New India Assurance Co. Another, I (1993) CPJ 557 (Madras) with which we agree.

5. As there was no undue delay in assessing the amount due, there is no question of awarding any compensation on account of mental agony etc. To recapitulate, theft took place on 6.11.91. Untraced report was submitted by the police on 27.2.92. 1st Surveyor report is dated 14.4.92. This was not acceptable to the Complainant. 2nd Survey report is dated 26.7.92. In our view the Complainant was not justified in tur