Mr. Justice A.P. Chowdhri, President — Mr. Jai Kishan Sharma, complainant for short, was running a stone crusher at Badarpur in the year 1991-92. He had obtained a machinery breakdown policy from the United India Insurance Company Ltd. for Rs. 7 lacs for the period 9.1.91 to 8.1.92. This amount included insurance to the tune of Rs. 2.33 lacs on account of a component called Jaw Crusher with which we are concerned in this case. On 16.1.91, the Jaw Crusher breakdown. On the same day, the complainant informed the Insurance Company in writing. The Insurance Company appointed M/s. Select Surveyors on the same day. The machinery concerned was inspected and for further examination the complainant was advised to shift the Jaw Crusher to the Vishwa Karma Foundry and Engineering Works which had fabricated the machine for opening the same and seeing the condition of the two bearings. The machine was, accordingly, taken to the manufacturer and the two bearings were also found to have been damaged. Repairs were carried out and the Jaw Crusher was re-fitted on 26.2.91. The complainant submitted a bill for Rs. 1,13,292/- on account of repairs. The Surveyor submitted his detailed report dated 30.7.91 in which he recommended settlement on payment of Rs. 54,795.20 as adjusted value of the loss. The Insurance Company entertained doubts about the timing of the accident especially as entered in the log-book and, accordingly, appointed Mr. J.K. Sharma, name- sake of the complainant, as second Surveyor. The second Surveyor visited the crusher on 19.2.92, possibly after the repairs had been either completely carried out or substantially carried out and submitted his report dated 21.2.92. The sec-and Surveyor raised doubts on several aspects of the claim. On a consideration of the said report, the Insurance Company repudiated the claim by letter dated 31.3.92. The present complaint was filed on 8.4.93 claiming Rs.1,13,292/- as the amount spent on repairs with 24% interest and further compensation on account of mental agony suffered by the complainant.

2. In the written version, it has been stated that the Insurance Company having repudiated the claim, the Commission had no jurisdiction and the complainant could have his remedy, if any, in the Civil Court. The main contention is that the log-book, which is required to be maintained under the terms of the insurance policy, showed discrepant timing with regard to working of the machine on the one hand and the time of the alleged accident on the other hand. The log-book had been apparently tampered with by making alteration and addition therein in the relevant entries, and it was, thus, rendered totally un-reliable. It was denied that the first Surveyor Mr. C.K. Jain had recommended Rs. 86,000/- as the amount payable to the complainant.

3. We have heard the complainant, who argued in person and Mr. Praveen Nigam, Advocate for the OP and have carefully gone through the records.

4. Mr. Praveen Nigam, learned Counsel for the OP stated that the Branch Manager of the Insurance Company had gone to the complainant with the cheque-book and had offered to pay him the amount recommended by the first Surveyor in full and final settlement of the claim. The offer was, however, not accepted by the complainant. According to Mr. Nigam, therefore, whatever decision is made in the present complaint, the Insurance Company should not be saddled with liability to pay interest or other compensation. The complainant denied that any such offer was made to him. Admittedly, the offer was not made in writing nor was this fact referred to either in reply to the legal notice sent through Counsel or in the affidavit of either Mr. B.S. Chopra, Deputy Manager of Mr. Rajesh Bhasin, Manager of the Insurance Company placed on record. On the contrary, the clear persistent and categorical case of the OP is that the complainant was trying to practise a fraud on the Insurance Company on the basis of the forged and fabricated entries in the l