The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement to interest on a claim amount received with a reservation of rights, and the determination of the appropriate rate and period for payment of interest.

Mr. Justice Lokeshwar Prasad, President—The complainant Messrs. Anand Auto Corporation (India), through its attorney, Shri Tarlok Singh Anand have filed the present complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) averring that the complainant is a partnership firm, duly registered with the Registrar of Firms. It is stated that Shri Tarlok Singh Anand has been appointed as attorney of the complainant to sign, verify and institute the present complaint and to pursue the same on behalf of the complainant before this Commission. It is stated that the complainant is having an account with the Punjab and Sind Bank, Kashmere Gate, Delhi (opposite party No. 2). It is stated that the complainant was availing of credit facility from opposite party No. 2 (for short ‘O.P. No. 2’) against the pledge of the stock in trade. It is stated that as per the requirements of O.P. No. 2 the complainant had taken a policy in the sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- from O.P. No. 1 and since the inception of the policy, premium of that policy was being paid by O.P. 2 on behalf of the complainant, regularly.

2. It is stated that on 1st August, 1996, a theft occurred in the godown bearing premises No. 1326, Sultan Singh Building, Kashmere Gate, Delhi, belonging to the complainant. It is stated that a report about the above theft was lodged with the police authorities and an intimation was also given by the complainant and O.P. No. 2 to O.P. 1. It is stated that claim under the policy was preferred by the complainant and O.P. No. 2 and the complainant and O.P. No. 2 thereafter have also complied with all the requirements and have fulfilled all the requisite formalities. The grievance of the complainant in the present complaint, in nutshell, is that despite completing all the formalities and furnishing the requisite information, the claim of the complainant, preferred by the complainant and O.P. No. 2 under the Policy, is not being settled by O.P. No. 1. Alleging ‘deficiency in service’ on the part of O.P. No. 1, it has been prayed by the complainant that O.P. No. 1 be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 9,09,218/-, with future interest from the date of complaint till realization, as detailed in paragraph 8 of the complaint. The complainant has also claimed damages to the extent of Rs. 50,000/- from O.P. No. 1. O.P. No. 2 has been arrayed in the present proceedings as a proforma party and no relief has been claimed by the complainant from O.P. No. 2.

3. A notice of the complaint was given to the O.Ps. O.P. No. 1 has entered appearance through its Advocate and has contested the claim of the complainant in the present complaint. In the reply/written version filed on behalf of O.P. No. 1, the above said O.P. has taken certain preliminary objections to the effect that the complaint, filed by the complainant, does not disclose any cause of action against O.P. No. 1; that the complainant has concealed certain material facts; that the complaint, filed by the complainant, is liable to be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; that O.P. No. 1 has settled the claim after due diligence and as such the complainant has got no case against O.P. No. 1; that the complaint has no merits as full amount under the policy, amounting to Rs. 6,40,216/-, has already been paid to the complainant. On merits while denying each and every allegation, it is stated that the complaint is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed with heavy costs.

4. The complainant has filed a rejoinder to the reply/written version filed on behalf of O.P. No. 1, controverting the pleas taken in the reply/written version filed on behalf of O.P. No. 1 and reiterating the averments made in the complaint.

5. Both the parties have adduced evidence in support of their respective case by means of affidavits. The complainant, in support of its case, has filed the affidavit of Shri Manmeet Singh Anand, partner of the complainant-firm. On behalf of O.P. No. 1