The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of the complainant to receive interest on the insurance claim amount at 12% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till realization, and the court's authority to modify the compensation awarded by the lower fora.

ORDER

K.S. Chaudhari, (P.M) - This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against order dated 23.3.2009 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, 'the State Commission') in First Appeal No. 2007/246, M/s A.G. Neochem (P) Ltd. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. by which while allowing appeal partly order of the District Forum allowing complaint was modified.

2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant-petitioner obtained policy from opposite party-respondent for a period of one year and during subsistence of policy, theft/burglary took place in the factory of complainant. Complainant lodged report with police and intimated to opposite party and submitted necessary documents. Opposite party appointed surveyor and surveyor assessed loss of Rs. 6,91,173/-. Investigating Officer vide report dated 1.1.2003 confirmed fact of theft. In spite of that, opposite party did not settle claim and on repeated requests, opposite party apprised that claim file was not traceable. Alleging deficiency on the part of the OP, complainant filed complaint before the District Forum. Opposite party resisted the complaint and submitted that claim was repudiated by letter dated 28.2.2001. Complainant belatedly informed police and opposite party and submitted that report lodged by complainant was false and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed opposite party to pay Rs. 6,91,173/- along with compensation of Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 2,000/- as cost of litigation. Appeal filed by complainant was partly allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order and compensation was in creased to Rs. 50,000/- and Rs.10,000/- was allowed as cost of litigation, against which this revision petition has been filed by the petitioner.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in spite of delay in payment of compensation, learned District Forum committed error in not allowing interest and learned State Commission further committed error in not allowing appeal. Hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be modified and interest be allowed. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent submitted that complainant has not claimed interest in the compliant from any specific date and order passed by the learned State Commission is in accordance with law, hence revision petition be dismissed.

5. As far allowing claim of the complainant by District Forum, opposite party has not preferred any appeal against that order and in such circumstances it stands proved that complainant was entitled to receive payment of Rs.6,91,173/-. Perusal of record reveals that theft was committed in August 1998 and surveyor assessed loss of Rs.6,91,173/-. On account of submitting final report by police claim was not paid by opposite party, but after direction from Chief District Magistrate, matter was reinvestigated and after investigation, it was observed that theft was committed and after wards claim should have been paid by the opposite party. Complainant himself delayed in filing complaint and he should have filed complaint immediately after filing challan by police. As complainant filed complaint in the year 2005, complainant was certainly entitled to interest from that date on aforesaid amount because complainant had to pay interest to his banker due to non-receipt of aforesaid amount. No doubt, complainant has not specifically stated in the complaint that interest is to be paid from which date but complainant claimed Rs.8,67,000/- with 24% p.a. interest. In such circumstances, complainant is certainly entitled to get interest from the date of filing complaint till receipt of money.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. M.K.J. Corporation [(1996) 6 SCC 428] in which interest was