C.G. Sethu Lekshmi, Member - The complainant in this case is an establishment called United Silicate Industries at Thodupuzha represented by its Proprietor, Shri K.K. Abdu. All the properties of the complainant firm including its buildings, machineries and oil furnace were insured with the United India Insurance Co., for an amount of Rs. 25,85,000/- The policy was issued to the complainant on 17.4.1989 from the Idukky branch of the United India Insurance Co., and the policy No. was 101 102/11/l1/11/117/89. As per the policy the insurers are liable to indemnify the insured for any loss caused by fire from 13.4.198 to 12.4.1990.

2. On 3.1.1990 at about 12.30 a.m during the working hours there was an explosion in the furnace of the complainant and it became defective. This was intimated to the 2nd opposite party on 5.1.1990 itself.

3. After the accident the said furnace was inspected by the expert engineer Mr. A Harikumar. As the result of the inspection, the complainant was asked by the engineer to shut down the furnace and stop production as the furnace was not safe. On 9.1.1990 the complainant had submitted the claim form before the opposite party. On the basis of the claim application the opposite party deputed Shri P.K. Krishnan, a qualified chemical engineer for the inspection of the factory and to conduct a survey and assess the loss. On 6.2.1990 also the inspection was conducted by the surveyor. At the request of the surveyor, the complainant had given the photograph of the furnace on 11.2.1990. But afterwards nothing was heard from the opposite party and on 22.2.1990 the complainant sent a letter to the opposite party.

4. A letter dated 10.3.1990 was sent to the complainant by the surveyor, P.K. Krishnan asking the complainant to submit a detailed estimate for the construction of a new furnace etc., The details asked for by the surveyor were furnished by the complainant on 26.3.1990. But subsequently there was no information regarding the claim and therefore the complainant sent letters dated 22.8.1990 and 17.9.1990 to the 1st opposite party. As there was no reply for those letters the complainant wrote to the Muvattupuzha division office of the opposite party on 20.11.1990 and on 21.11.1990 itself a reply was sent to the complainant stating that the claim was under scrutiny. Afterwards nothing was heard and the complainant again sent a letter on 1.2.1991 to the Muvattupuzha division office.

5. According to the complainant he had the eligibility to get the claim amount but the opposite party is trying to get away from the liability Due to the irresponsible behavior of the opposite party the complainant did not get the claim amount and as a result he had sustained a loss of Rs. 1500/- per day from 4.1.1990 as loss of production. According to the complainant if the claim was settled without delay and the claim amount was allowed, the complainant could be able to construct the furnace and start production in March 1990 itself and he could have avoided the loss of production. As the furnace was shut down and the production was stopped, he could not repay the loans he had availed from the Idukky District Co-op., Bank and Kerala State Co-op., Bank and he was asked by the Idukky District Co-op., Bank to pay an amount of Rs. 7,95,709/- including the arrears and interest.

6. At the time of the accident in 1990, an amount of Rs. 6 lakhs was sufficient for the reconstruction of the furnace. But now due to the price rise and devaluation of money the complainant will have to spend Rs. 7 lakhs for the reconstruction of the furnace and that was because of the delay on part of the opposite parties in settling the claim. Therefore the complainant filed this complaint claiming the amount as compensation. He also claimed an amount of Rs. 5,50,000/- as loss of profit, Rs. 8000/- as the interest payable to the Idukky Dist. Co-op., Bank and Rs. 50,000/- for mental agony from the opposite party. But he limited the claim to a total sum of Rs. 9