Thiru Justice M.S. Janarthanam, President—This action has come up for admission before us today. We perused the averments in the complaints and also the documents filed along with it.

2. Such perusal reveals the following factors.

3. The complainant has a textile mill at Kattuvelampatti Village, Natham Taluk. The complainant had insured its mill buildings, machinery and stock in process etc., with the opposite party Insurance Company and obtained Fire Policies bearing Nos. F/01255 of 1996 and F/01256 of 1996. The period of the two policies was between 5.2.1996 and 4.2.1997.

4. During the currency of the policies on 19.3.1996 at about 10 a.m., fire it is said, broke out in the mills on account of clashes between groups of workers employed in the complainant mills. Consequently, there was considerable damage to the buildings, machinery and stock in process covered by the two policies of insurance.

5. The complainant preferred a claim to the opposite party to the tune of Rs. 68,99,053/-. The dispute with respect to the claim made was referred to arbitration by the complainant and the opposite party. Ultimately, an award was passed on 11.9.1997 by the Arbitrator for a sum of Rs. 68,99,053/- subject to salvage and depreciation as agreed to between the Surveyor and the claimant, complainant.

6. The opposite party, it appears, filed a petition to set aside the award so passed before the competent Civil Forum. The petition so filed, it is said, was not numbered and brought before any Civil Court for further proceedings. The opposite party did not even make payment of the award made by the Arbitrator. The complainant was, therefore, forced to file E.P. 47/1998 in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Dindigul, to execute the award. The opposite party filed a petition in the said E.P. seeking stay of execution of the proceedings on the ground that the opposite party had filed a petition to set aside the award.

7. In such a situation, the opposite party, it appears, wrote a letter dated 20.11.1998 to the complainant stating that the net claim amount payable to the complainant would be Rs. 46,17,810/- and if the complainant agreed to receive the amount, the Insurance Company, was prepared to settle the claim provided a full discharge voucher from the complainant and its bankers is filed apart from withdrawing E.P. 47/1998 pending before the Court of Subordinate Judge, Dindigul.

8. The copy of the discharge voucher executed by the complainant is not filed herewith. In order to understand whether the discharge voucher was executed by the complainant under protest, we wanted the copy of the discharge voucher to be produced. Learned Counsel representing the complainant said that he is not having a copy of the discharge voucher. He, however, told across the bar that the full discharge voucher had been executed by the complainant without any sort of a protest whatever.

9. The complainant would state that interest @ 21% p.a. had to be paid on the settled claim amount of Rs. 46,17,810/- from 19.3.1996, the date of accident till payment namely, 2.2.1999. The amount of interest, as claimed by them, when demanded, was not paid by the opposite party, Insurance Company. The refusal to pay interest on the part of the Insurance Company, the complainant would say, would tantamount to deficiency in service. The interest claimed actually comes to Rs. 27,88,000/-. However, the claim is restricted to Rs. 9,50,000/-.

10. We heard the arguments of learned Counsel Mr. S. Raghavan, representing the complainant. According to him the fact that the complainant executed a full discharge voucher to the opposite party does not mean that he is estopped from instituting a complaint for the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, Insurance Company, in the sense of not paying the interest amount as claimed by the complainant. The tenability or otherwise of such a submission may fall into the arena of discussion hereafter.

11. Learned Counsel drew our attention to th