Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. The appellant was the complainant before the State Commission and his main ground is that the deduction of additional premium amount from the claimed / disbursed amount is not in order, as also the Surveyor fees amounting to Rs. 39,590 are not payable by him as also that Rs. 28,930 deducted by the Insurers towards average adjuster clause is also not maintainable.

5. As far as the question of deduction of 'premium amount' is concerned, without going into the merits of this case, one way or the other, we only wish to state that there is no such prayer in the complaint filed by the complainant before the State Commission. In para 5 of the complaint, which runs into 6 pages, as also summary of the claim, there is not even a remote reference claiming the additional amount of premium deducted by the Insurers. Para 5 gives a narration in respect of each claim which, in summary form, reads as follows:

10. As per the complaint, summary of which has been reproduced earlier, there is no claim towards 'Surveyor fee' charged by the Insurers, hence we do not go into this question. As far as the charges for 'average adjuster' is concerned, this is found as per law under the average clause relating to shipping /shipment matters. In the aforementioned circumstances, we find no merit in this appeal, hence dismissed.

This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company aggrieved by the interest @12% p.a. awarded on the amount already paid to the complainant from 16.10.1994 till 8.11.1996. Learned Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company wishes to rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajmer Singh Cotton & General Mills and Ors. Etc. II (1999) CPJ10 (SC) with United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mis. Asa Singh Cotton Factory and Ors. 1986-99 Consumer 5077 (NS). It is the case of the Insurance Company that the amount of Rs. 28,99,357 were paid in full and final settlement and since no coercive fraud or exercise of undue influence or mis-representation has been alleged in the complaint as per law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment (supra), the interest could not have been granted by the State Commission as they were not guilty of any delay in settlement of the claim. We have gone through this judgment very carefully, operative part of which reads as under: