The court emphasized the importance of the language used in the indemnity bond and letter of subrogation in determining the acceptance of a settlement amount. The decision also reinforced the insurer's obligation to pay the declared value of the insured goods.

JUDGMENT

Virendra Singh, President. - This complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by Smt. Tanveer Sultana against the New India Assurance Company Limited with the following prayers: That the opposite party is liable to pay the following compensation to the complainant after deducting a sum of Rs. 2,50,000, received by the complainant under protest:

Future and pendente lite interest . 18% till the date of actual payment.

2. The facts of the complaint case stated in brief are that the complainant had purchased a Tata Telco Ten Wheeled Truck Model LPT-2213/56 on 01-06-1995 from Kailash Motors, Kanpur and got constructed the body of the said truck upon the chassis. After construction of the body of the said truck, the value of the truck was more than Rs. 7,50,000/-. The complainant got the said truck financed from Rohilkhand Finance Company, Badaun. The loan of the said truck was cleared by the complainant in the year 1997. The truck was registered with the registration department of U.P. Government and was having registration No. UP-78 N-0481. The truck was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Limited from 06-07-1996 to 05-07-1997 through cover note no. 188957 for a sum of Rs. 7.00,000/-. Again the said truck was insured with the United India Insurance Company Limited for the period from 8-8-1997 to 7-8-1998 for a sum of Rs. 6,50,000/-. hereafter the complainant got the truck insured with the opposite party the New India Assurance Company Limited for the period from 07-08-1998 to 06-08-1999 for a sum of Rs. 5,50,000/-. Further the said truck was re-insured with the opposite party The New India Assurance Company Limited for a period from 11-08-1999 to 10-08-2000 for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-. the complainant submitted that the above truck was stolen on 19-12-1999 within the jurisdiction of Police Station Ghatampur, District Kanpur Nagar. The F.I.R. was lodged with the concerned police station on 19-12-1999, The opposite party was also informed about the loss. I hereafter all the required formalities have been completed by the complainant but the opposite party has not settled the claim of the complainant in spile of repeated requests of the complainant, it is further submitted that the complainant has written several letters, such as the letters dated.20-09-2000, 19-12-2000, 6-2-2001 but the opposite party neither settled the claim nor bothered to furnish any reply of the letters issued by the complainant. Thereafter the complainant served the notice through Advocate dated 07-03-2001. The opposite party issued a letter dated 16-03-2001 to the complainant intimating therein that they had settled the claim of the complainant for Rs.2,25,000/- on the basis of survey report of Sri L.S. Chauhan. Thereafter the complainant informed the opposite party about the letter of his Counsel dated 28-04-2001 stating therein that the claim has been settled by the opposite party after an unexplained delay is insufficient and the complainant is ready to accept the said claim under protest. The complainant had also served notice dated 29-03-2001 and 12-05-2001 to the opposite party regarding their deficient services in settling the claim of the complainant. It is further submitted that the complainant finally received a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- from the opposite party under protest, after executing the letter of subrogation and the indemnity bond on 25-06-2001. the complainant has suffered great hardship and loss of business on account of deficient services rendered