P.N. Nag, President - By this complaint, the complainant has sought• directions that the respondent Insurance Company be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 19,49,036.00 alongwith interest @ 18% per annum for delayed settlement of the claim.

2. The brief relevant facts necessary to be mentioned for determining the point in controversy are that the complainant-Himachal Pradesh Horticultural Produce Marketing and Processing Corporation Limited(hereinafter to be referred to as the HPMC), a Company incorporated under the Companies Act. 1956, has established its factory. Packing and Grading House and Cold store at Gumma, District Shimla and had insured it with the respondent-United India Insurance Company Limited(hereinafter to• be referred to as the Insurance Company) by two policies i.e. vide Policy No. 1111872/90 for the period from 26-2-1990 to 25-2- 1991 and vide Policy No. 111313/1271/90 with effect from 14~8-1990 to 13-8-1991 for a total sum of Rs. 2,41,51,000/-. Such policies covered the risk of fire damage to the building, plant, machinery, stocks etc. The cold store of the HPMC was extensively damaged by fire on 2-9-1990 and stocks of packing material etc. lying stocked inside were burnt. There is no dispute that the fire took place in the building and the stocks were gutted in the fire during the period when the Insurance policies were in force. The HPMC submitted all the requisite documents to the Insurance Company. It is no doubt true that the HPMC requested the Insurance Company to settle the claim at the earliest, but the claim was not settled by the Insurance Company till the matter was finally settled between the parties on 16-8- 1996. According to the HMPC the claim was settled at such a belated stage as the Insurance Company insisted upon the production of final investigation report of the police and Magisterial enquiry conducted by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Shimla, which was ordered by the Government. Ultimately on 16-8-1996, the Insurance Company offered a sum of Rs. 37,74,064/- on account of total loss suffered by the HPMC. The HPMC, however, sought clarification as to why the amount of Rs. 37,74,064/- is being offered against the amount of Rs. 47,48,100/- as assessed by the Surveyor and why a sum of Rs. 9,74,036/- is being deducted. The Insurance Company informed the HPMC that the amount of Rs. 9,74,064/- has been deducted from the amount of Rs. 47,48,100/-. as the HPMC has to be indemnified for the actual loss suffered by them and the amount of Rs. 9,74,036/- has been given by the Government as a subsidy for the purchase of stocks etc. This explanation was not accepted by the HPMC and they have claimed Rs. 9,74,036/- to cover up the loss of Rs.47,48,100/- assessed by the Surveyor. Furthermore, they have also claimed the interest @ 18% per annum on the amount of Rs. 37,74,064/ - with effect from 1-1-1992. which the HPMC considers as the reasonable period for settlement of the claim to 16-8-1996, till the amount is actually paid to them.

3. The claim has been resisted by the Insurance Company on various grounds. According to the Insurance Company the claim has been settled with the HPMC in full and final settlement for Rs. 37,74,064/- for which the receipt has also been given by the HPMC and Indemnity Bond also has been executed. Once the amount is fully and finally settled between the parties and the HPMC gives the discharge voucher, it ceases to be a consumer dispute. Further, according to the Insurance Company, there were reports in the press doubting the truth of the incident and coupled with other facts and circumstances, it creates serious doubt whether the alleged fire has taken place in the mode and manner as alleged and whether the loss has occurred on the scale alleged. The doubt expressed in all these sections of the press was that the fire was deliberate and not accidental and it has been caused so as to conceal the mis-deeds of the HPMC. The forensic examination of the sig