The court established that the insurance company's failure to investigate and assess the claim, and its rejection after a significant delay, amounted to deficiency of service, justifying the allowance of the claim.

Mr. Justice M.Y. Kawossa, President—Matrix of this case is that complainant owned a two storeyed pucca building tin roofed at Vater Khani, Kupwara Kashmir. He insured the building with the O.P. under policy No. 11/98401 from 2.4.1998 to 1.4.1999 for an amount of Rs. 5.00 lacs. On 15.6.1998 complainant came to know that his above building residential house was torched and there was total loss. He received copy of FIR No. 141 of 1998 under Section 436/RPC on 25.6.1998. On the same day he intimated the O.P. about the loss and raised the claim. His contention is that he raised the claim and asked for compensation through the correspondence which was sent through courier to the O.P. The O.P. kept mum. According to him O.P. neither accepted the claim nor rejected it. Complainant waited for the action of the O.P. but they on 4th July, 2002 wrote a letter to the complainant informing him that no such claim was raised with the O.P. and complainant was asked to take up the matter with Delhi Branch with whom the property was insured. This letter is written by Divisional Manager, Srinagar of Oriental Insurance Company. Complainant alleges that this letter has given cause of action to him and he filed this complaint before this Commission.

2. O.P. was noticed. They resisted the complaint mainly on two grounds. They accepted the insurance policy but contended that the property insured was not situated in Vater Khani, Kupwara as alleged by the complainant but complainant through this policy has insured his Delhi property situated at Yamna Vihar, Delhi. Secondly, the whole correspondence of complainant was denied to have been received by the O.P. Their contention is that the complaint is belated by 4 years and is not entertainable in the eyes of law.

3. Parties led their evidence. Complainant has examined himself and the O.P. has examined Shri Zutshi, Asstt. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company, Town Hall, Branch, Jammu.

4. Heard learned Counsels for the parties. Learned Counsel for the O.P. has at the outset taken a U-turn from the stand taken in the written version. He had come up with clear admission accepting the insurance policy for the property at Kupwara which is the stand of the complainant. He has done it rightly so because the complainant has filed photo copy of the document of original policy. We have also been shown copy of the same by the Counsel for complainant wherein OP has clearly accepted that such policy was for the property situated in Kupwara Vater Khani so the dispute is about the property which is situated at Kupwara. Learned Counsel for the O.P. has contended that the complaint is belated and time barred and has reiterated that he has based his argument on M/s. Kerala Agro Machinery Corporation Ltd. v. Bijoy Kumar Roy, II =AIR 2002 SC Page 1210 June Part and Oberoi Trading Corporation v. United India Insurance Company, II (1992) CPJ 523 (NC) decided by the Apex Court and National Commission respectively. Learned Counsel has contended that the complaint is barred by time. It has not been filed within 2 years from the date of loss. Learned Counsel for the complainant has refuted all these arguments on the ground that once complainant raised the claim immediately after the occurrence that claim was neither allowed nor was repudiated till 4th July, 2002 on which date the O.P. has informed the complainant by correspondence that no claim was raised with them by Srinagar Branch and claim was barred by time and the property was insured with Delhi Branch. According to the complainant immediately after receiving this letter which gives cause of action to him, he approached the complainant. We have given thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us and we have perused both the judgments relied upon by the Counsel for O.P. Both the judgments are distinguishable from the present case. In the Apex Court judgment supra there was a defect in the machinery purchased by the complainant from the O.P. i.e. M/s