M/S. Mangalam Organics Limited vs New India Assurance Company Ltd

The present Consumer Complaint has been filed under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by M/s. Mangalam Organics Limited, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the Complainant Company) against The New India Assurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Opposite Party Insurance Company).

Brief facts as narrated in the Consumer Complaint are that the Complainant Company M/s. Mangalam Organics Limited (earlier known as Dujodwala Products Limited in the year 1981 and subsequently known as Allied Colloids Pvt. Ltd. in the year 1992) is engaged in the manufacture of Terpene Products such as Camphor Technical, Camphor A Grade, Camphene, Isobornyl Acetate, Isoborneol, Dipentene, Sodium Acetate Trihydrate, Camphor Oil, Pine Oil, Pine Tar, Resin Products such as Terpene Phenolic Resin, Penta Ester Gum, Glycerol Ester Gum, Alkyl Phenolic Resin, Phenol Formaldehyde Resin, Gum Rosin etc.The Complainant Company is an ISO certified Company and is a Government recognized Export House with customers in Europe, USA, Africa and Middle East.The Factory of the Complainant Company comprised of various departments for the storage, production and Office.One Block of the Factory was used for Resin Plant for manufacture of various Resin Products and other Block comprises of a Camphor Plant used for the manufacture of Camphor Products.The Complainant Company obtained two Insurance Policies, i.e., Standard Fire Policy No. 11080011150100000168 and the Declaration Policy 11080011150200000001 valid from 01st May 2015 to 30th April 2016 from the Opposite Party Insurance Company for covering the risk of Building (Super Structure / Plinth & Foundations), Plant & Machinery (P&M), Furniture, Fittings, Fixtures ("FFF"), Stock and Stock (Work-in-progress) at the Factory.During the currency of the Insurance Policies on 22 June 2015, due to short-circuit there was a major fire accident at about 12:30 hours in the Resin Plant located in the Factory.Upon noticing the fire, the power supply of the entire Factory was isolated and the Plant Operations, including the Boiler Line, Chilling Plant and other Common Utilities were completely shut down.The fire which broke out in the Resin Plant reached the Common Utilities connected to the Camphor Plant.Having no alternative arrangement to cool off the Camphor Plant, maintain the temperature and to prevent the possibility of an explosion, resulting from the exothermic heating of the material charged in process at the various Reactors at the Camphor Plant, the Complainant Company was compelled to drain out Work-in-Progress (WIP) items in the Reactors, Columns and Pipelines to avoid fire/explosion in the Camphor Plant.It is the case of the Complainant Company that if drain out of Work-in-Progress was not done, the Camphor Plant would have also caught fire and it would have lead to an enormous loss to the tune of Rs. 80 - Rs. 100 crores. The Opposite Party Insurance Company was informed about the fire incident on 22nd June, 2015, who appointed M/s. Allied Insurance Surveyors & Loss Assessors Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Surveyor) to assess the loss. The Surveyor visited the Factory to assess the loss. Requisite information / documents were provided to the Surveyor. The Complainant Company lodged a total claim of Rs. 29,26,64,553/- ( Rs. 18,93,35,219/- towards Standard Policy and Rs. 10,33,29,334/- towards Declaration Policy) with the Opposite Party Insurance Company. The Complainant Company informed the Opposite Party Insurance Company that the Resin Plant would take approximately 9 months to get into Operation as it would require redesigning of Equipment, Fabrication, Installation, Commissioning of the Plant and the Structure on which the Equipment is to be installed would also be replaced and it would require huge amount and therefore, the Complainant Company requested Opposite Party to release Rs. 7.5 crore on an adhoc basis to restart the restoration of the Plant. The Complainant Company retained the salvage for Rs. 83 lakhs. The Surveyor issued an Interim Survey Report dated 29.01.2016 vide which he assessed the Minimum Liability to Rs. 8,15,57,419 and also recommended an on-account payment of Rs. 2 Crores towards ad-hoc payment of the claim. The Opposite Party Insurance Company made a payment of Rs. 24 lakh on 11.03.2016 and after repeated requests, another sum of Rs. 1.76 Crore was also released on 31.05.2016 making total ad-hoc payment of Rs. 2 Crores. The Surveyor issued Final Survey Report dated 29.03.2017 vide which he assessed the Loss to Rs. 18,02,43,552/- ( Rs. 12,30,87,548/- towards loss under Standard Fire Policy including structure, machines, stock (WIP) in Resin and Camphor Plant and Rs. 5,71,56,004/- towards loss under Declaration Policy - Stock including Raw Material and Finished Goods (Camphor Solutions). The said Final Survey Report was challenged by the Complainant Company alleging certain discrepancies in the said Report, but in vain. Due to financial crises, the Complainant Company requested the Opposite Party Insurance Company to release an interim payment of Rs. 10 crores till the final disposal of the processed claim amount. It is alleged that the Opposite Party Insurance Company arbitrarily and unilaterally credited a sum of Rs. 8,09,34,774/- in the account of the Complainant Company towards full and final settlement of the Claims. The Complainant Company requested the Opposite Party Insurance Company to review the loss assessment as according to the Complainant Company there were discrepancies, such as, assessment of loss was incomplete because the loss to the Plinth was not covered in the assessment, the depreciation charges were erroneously included despite of reinstatement exercise; the loss caused to the entire Electrical equipments were completely overlooked; single inflationary factor was wrongly applied. But getting no response from the Opposite Party Insurance Company, alleging deficiency in Service and Unfair Trade Practice on the part of the Opposite Party Insurance Company, present Complaint has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-

"a. Declare that the Complainant Company suffered deficiency-in-service and Unfair Trade Practices from the Opposite Party hereinabove.

b. Declare that the Complainant Company is entitled to the full claim amount of Rs. 26,26,56,330/- (Rupees Twenty Six Crores Twenty Six Lacs Fifty Six Thousand and Three Hundred thirty only) for the actual loss suffered and covered under the insurance policies;

c. Declare that the Opposite Party unilaterally and arbitrarily credited a partial sum of Rs. 8,09,34,774/- (Rupees Eight Crores Nine Lacs Thirty four thousand and Seven Hundred Seventy Four only) towards alleged full and final settlement of insurance claim of the Complainant Company;

d. Declare that the consent letter dated 29 March 2017 issued by the Complainant Company to the Opposite Party for a claim amount to the tune of Rs. 18,02,43,552/- (Rupees Eighteen Crores Two Lacs Forty Three Thousand Five Hundred Fifty Two only) is not binding on the Complainant Company;

e. Direct the Opposite Party to pay to the Complainant Company the balance amount of Rs. 16,17,21,556/- (Rupees Sixteen Crores Seventeen Lacs Twenty One Thousand Five Hundred Five Sixty only);

f. Direct the Opposite Party to pay to the Complainant Company interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of intimation of loss till the date of actual payment.

g. Direct the Opposite Party to also pay to the Complainant Company compensation to the tune of Rs. 10 Lacs for causing harassment and mental agony in pursuing its legitimate claim;

h. Direct the Opposite Party to pay costs of the present proceedings to the Complainant Company;"

Upon Notice, Opposite Party Insurance Company contested the Complaint and filed its Written Statement.In the Written Statement, the Opposite Party Insurance Company took a preliminary objection that the Claim of the Complainant has been assessed by a reputed, experienced, Govt. Licensed firm of Surveyor and the admissible amount has been credited in the account of the Complainant in full and final settlement of the Claim.Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party Insurance Company.It was also submitted that the claim of the Complainant falls within the exclusion clause of the Policy, which reads as under:-

".......The Company agrees (subject to the conditions and Exclusions contained herein or endorsed or otherwise expressed hereon) that if after payment of premium the Property insured described in the Schedule or any part of such property be destroyed or damaged by any of the perils specified hereunder during the period of insurance named in the said schedule .... the Company shall pay to the insured the value of the Property at the time of the happening of its destruction or the amount of such damage or at its option reinstate or replace such property or any part thereof."

This policy does not cover :

"Loss destruction or damage to any electrical machine, apparatus, fixture or fittings arising from or occasioned by overrunning excessive pressure, short circuiting, arcing, self heating or leakage of electricity from whatever cause (lighting included) provided that this exclusion shall apply only to the particular electrical machine, apparatus, fixture or fitting so affected and not to other machines, apparatus, fixtures or fittings which may be destroyed or damaged by fire so set up."

"1.1.3 : Policies having sum insured above INR 10 Cr. and upto INR 1500 Cr. Per location 5% of claim amount subject to a minimum of INR 5 lakhs."

"9. Loss of earnings, loss by delay, loss of market or other consequential or indirect loss or damage of any kind or description whatsoever."

"10. Loss or damage by spoilage resulting from the retardation or interruption or cessation of any process of operation caused by operation of any of the perils covered."

"The work of replacement or reinstatement (which may be carried out upon another site and in any manner suitable to the requirement of the insured subject to the liability of the Company not being thereby increased) must be commenced and carried out with reasonable dispatch and in any case must be completed within 12 months after the destruction or damage or within such further time as the Company may in writing allow, otherwise no payment beyond the amount which would have been payable under the policy if this memorandum had not been incorporated therein shall be made." (relevant to property other than stock.)"

The Opposite Party Insurance Company denied the allegations of the Complainant.It was stated that the claim amount of Rs. 8,13,17,299/- pertaining to the Camphor plant was not payable as it was not affected by fire but due to shutdown of the Common Boiler (for both, the Resin and Camphor Plant), the stocks in process were affected which was attributable to spoilage due to retardation of process, in effect a consequential loss and is an exclusion under the Policies. It was stated that the Surveyor has assessed the loss on each item claimed by Complainant. The Electrical Exclusion Clause of the Policy excludes the Electrical Equipment which gets damaged/destroyed by its own Electrical fault/defect. The machinery items added in different years were subjected to depreciation at different rates. It was reiterated that the Claim of the Complainant falls within Exclusion Clause and the approved Claim amount as admissible under the terms and conditions of the Policy had been remitted to the Bank Account of the Complainant Company in full and final settlement and the Complainant Company is not entitled to any further amount and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.

We have heard the Mr. Karan Mehra learned Counsel for the Complainant Company and Mr. S.M. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the Opposite Party Insurance Company.

Mr. Karan Mehra, learned Counsel appearing for the Complainant Company has submitted that (i) the Insurance Company has arbitrarily and without any application of mind settled the claim at Rs. 10,09,34,774/- as full and final settlement against the total claim of Rs. 26,26,56,350/- under both the Policies despite the categorical finding of the Surveyor that the Complainant Company was entitled for a claim to the tune of Rs. 18,02,43,542/- on account of loss caused suffered by them; (ii) in the Final Survey Report, the Surveyorhas allowed the claim towards the loss of Work In Progress stock lying in the Camphor Plant on account of loss minimization; (iii) the Insurance Company, brushing aside the Report of the Surveyor, had released only a sum of Rs. 10,09,34,774/- instead of Rs. 18,02,43,542/- which action amount to a grave deficiency in service on their part; (iv) the Complainant Company agreed to give consent on the amount assessed by the Surveyor subject to receipt and verification of the final Survey Report and the same was not objected by the Insurance Company; (v) the Insurance Company was under an obligation at least to release a sum of Rs. 18,02,43,552/- as assessed by the Surveyor in its Final Survey Report; (vi) the Complainant Company was under a compulsion to drain out Work-in-Progress (WIP) items in the Reactors, Columns and Pipelines to avoid fire/explosion in the Camphor Plant inasmuch as the fire in the Resin Plant was so massive that it reached the common utilities connected to Camphor Plant; (vii) since the Camphor's flash point was at 66.5OC and the temperature was rising in the Plant, the Complainant Company was unable to monitor the rise in the temperature and consequently Work In Progress Stock lying in the Camphor Plant was drained out to avoid fire explosion; (viii) although the Surveyor, in its report, has admitted and assessed the loss of Work in Progress stock in the Camphor Plant but still the Insurance Company has rejected the claim of Rs. 8,13,17,299/- vide email dated 01.11.2017; (ix) the Insurance Company wrongly concluded that the spoilage of the WIP (stock) in the Camphor Plant was because of retardation of process due to the shutdown of the common boiler and it was excluded from both the Insurance Policies,however, it is clarified that it was not the case of the spoilage at all.In fact, it is the case of material being vented out of the drum in a fire mitigating process, which was also a contractual obligation on the part of the Complainant Company as per the terms and conditions of the Policies; (x)it was imperative for the Complainant Company to decant the WIP Stock lying in the Camphor Plant to minimize the possibility of explosion on account of the fire around the Camphor Plant and high temperature due to vaporization and ignition of the WIP Stock; (xi)the Surveyor had overlooked the facts that the Complainant Company always had an intention to reinstate the machine which were damaged during the fire incident; both the Insurance Policies contained the reinstatement clauses and the Surveyor was duly informed that the property would be reinstated and the claim would be based on a re-instatement value; the requests for extension were sought to complete the entire replacement process in terms of the reinstatement clauses in the Policies and the Surveyor had incorrectly worked out the reinstatement value of the machinery based on a single index factor prevalent as on the date of loss, however, it should be calculated on the basis of price index at the time of purchase of the machinery.The Surveyor had also failed to consider the claim towards the loss and cost incurred for re-erection of the Plinth.

Mr. S.M. Tripathi, learned Counsel appearing for the Opposite Party Insurance Company referred to the Insurance Policy and submitted that Clause 7 of the General Exclusions specifically excluded loss, destruction or damage to any electrical machine, apparatus, fixture or fitting arising from or occasioned by over-running, excessive pressure, short-circuiting and, therefore, the Opposite Party Insurance Company is not at all liable to pay any amount whatsoever towards the loss suffered on account of loss, destruction or damage to electrical machine, apparatus etc. mentioned in Clause 7.

He further submitted that the Complainant Company had opted for reinstatement and therefore, Clause 4, which deals with Reinstatement Value Policy, is attracted.The Complainant Company did not complete the reinstatement within 12 months after destruction or damage and, therefore, is not entitled to claim under the Reinstatement Value Policy.Even the Complainant Company vide email dated 13.06.2016 had requested for extension of the period of replacement by another 12 months.But it had not been completed.

According to the learned Counsel, the Surveyor had mentioned that the stock of Camphor Oil in the tank at the Camphor Plant was a finished stock material and was kept in tank.But as it was neither packed nor entered in the excise register it had been considered as a part of Work-in-Progress.

The Surveyor had referred to the action taken by the Complainant being done for minimization of loss and had dealt with the claim set-up by the Complainant Company.The Surveyor had assessed the total loss at Rs. 1,23,087,548/- (Rupees Twelve Crore Thirty Lakhs Eighty Seven Thousand Five Hundred and Forty Eight only) under Policy No. 1100800111150100000168 and Rs. 57,156,004 (Rupees Five Crore Seventy One Lakh Fifty Six Thousand Four only) under Policy No. 1100800111150100000001.The total of which comes to Rs. 180,243,552 (Rupees Eighteen Crore Two Lakh Forty Three Thousand Five Hundred Fifty Two only).According to him the Opposite Party Insurance Company was not bound to accept the loss/damage assessed by the Surveyor and had rightly fixed it at Rs. 100,934,774/- (Rupees Ten Crore Nine Lakh Thirty Four Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy Four only), which does not call for any enhancement.The Opposite Party Insurance Company has not indulged in any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice and the Complaint Case be dismissed.

We have given thoughtful consideration to the various pleas raised by the learned Counsel for the Parties and have perused the averments made in the Complaint, Written Version as also the documents filed by the respective Parties.

It is not in dispute that the Complainant Company had taken two Insurance Policies, namely, Standard Fire Policy and Declaration Policy which were valid from 01.05.2015 to 30.04.2016 from the Opposite Party Insurance Company.The said Insurance Policies covered the risk of Building (Super Structure / Plinth & Foundations), Plant & Machinery (P&M), Furniture, Fittings, Fixtures ("FFF"), Stock and Stock (Work-in-progress) at the Factory.An incident of major fire due to short-circuiting took place on 22.06.2015 at about 12:30hrs in the Resin Plant located in the Factory premises.Upon noticing the fire, the power supply of the entire Factory was isolated and the Plant Operations including the Boiler Line, Chilling Plant and other Common Utilities were completely shut down.The fire which broke out in the Resin Plant reached the Common Utilities connected to the Camphor Plant.The Complainant Company thought it proper to drain out Work-in-Progress (WIP) items in the Reactors, Columns and Pipelines to avoid fire/explosion in the Camphor Plant, as no alternative arrangement to cool off the Camphor Plant, maintain the temperature and to prevent the possibility of an explosion, resulting from the exothermic heating of the material charged in process at the various reactors at the Camphor Plant, was available.This was done to prevent the Camphor Plant from getting fire which would have led to enormous loss to the tune of Rs. 80 Crore to Rs. 100 Crore.The Complainant Company had lodged the total claim of Rs. 292,664,553/- (Rupees Twenty Nine Crore Twenty Six Lakh Sixty Four Thousand Five Hundred Fifty Three only) ( Rs. 189,335,219/- (Rupees Eighteen Crore Ninety Three Lakh Thirty Five Thousand Two Hundred and Nineteen Only) towards Standard Policy and Rs. 103,329,334/- (Rupees Ten Crore Thirty Three Lakh Twenty Nine Thousand and Three Hundred Thirty Four only) towards Declaration Policy.Various correspondences were exchanged between the Parties.The Complainant Company had retained the salvage of Rs. 83 lakh.However, for reinstatement of the entire machinery equipment, apparatus etc. the Complainant Company had sought extension of time.The Surveyor had inspected the Premises, gone into the details and had assessed the loss at Rs. 180,243,552/- (Rupees Eighteen Crore Two Lakh Forty Three Thousand Five Hundred Fifty Two only) ( Rs. 123,087,548/- (Rupees Twelve Crore Thirty Lakh Eighty Seven Thousand Five Hundred Forty Eight only) towards loss under Standard Fire Policy including structure, machines, stock (WIP) in Resin and Camphor Plant and Rs. 57,155,004/- (Rupees Five Crore Seventy One Lakh Fifty Five Thousand and Four only) towards loss under the Declaration Policy, i.e., stock including raw material and finished goods (Camphor Solutions). The Complainant Company did not accept the Surveyor Report and pointed out certain discrepancies but in vain.

The point for consideration is as to whether under the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policies the Opposite Party Insurance Company was justified in not accepting the loss/damages assessed by the Surveyor and also not accepting the discrepancies pointed out by the Complainant Company and not granting full claim of loss made by the Complainant Company.

From a perusal of the Standard Fire Policy No. 11080011150100000168, we find that the Opposite Party Insurance Company had insured the various items of the Complainant Company as follows:

Items Value in Rupees

Items

Value in Rupees

(a)

Building - Super structure

14,70,00,000

(b)

Building - Plinth & Foundations

3,67,50,000

(c)

Plant, Machinery and Accessories

77,00,00,000

(d)

Furniture, Fittings, Fixture and other contents

10,00,000

(e)

Stocks and Stocks in process

12,00,00,000

Even though the opening paragraph of the Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy (Material Damage) has been mentioned in the written statement filed by the Opposite Party Insurance Company which we had already reproduced earlier but as it is not complete we deem it proper to reproduce the complete paragraph as also some other clauses which are relevant for deciding the issues involved in this case. In the terms and conditions of the Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy issued by the Opposite Party Insurance Company, in question, the opening paragraph reads as under:-

"STANDARD FIRE AND SPECIAL PERILS POLICY (MATERIAL DAMAGE)

In Consideration of the insured named in the Schedule thereto having paid to THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED (hereinafter called the Company) the full premium mentioned in the said schedule, THE COMPANY Agrees (subject to the Conditions and Exclusions contained therein or endorsed or otherwise expressed hereon) that if after payment of the premium the Property insured described in the Schedule or any part of such Property be destroyed or damaged by any of the perils specified hereunder during the period of insurance named in the said schedule or at any subsequent period in respect of which the insured shall have paid and the Company shall have accepted the premium required for the renewal of the policy, the Company shall pay to the insured the value of the property at the time of the happening of its destruction or the amount of such damaged or at its option reinstate or replace such property or any part thereof: "

Clause 1 which relates to Fire reads as follows:-

"1. Fire

Excluding destruction or damage caused to the property insured by

a) (i) its own fermentation, natural heating or spontaneous combustion,

(ii) its undergoing any heating or drying process.

b) burning or property insured by order of any Public Authority."

Clause 7 of the General Exclusions excludes damage, loss or destruction of electrical machine, etc.referred to below:-

"7. Loss, destruction or damage to any electrical machine, apparatus, fixture or fitting arising from occasioned by over-running, excessive pressure, short-circuiting, arcing, self-heating, or leakage of electricity, from whatever cause (lightning included) provided that this exclusion shall apply only to the particular electrical machine, apparatus, fixture or fitting so affected and not to other machines, apparatus, fixtures or fittings which may be destroyed or damage by fire so set up."

From a conjunctive reading of the General terms and conditions of the Standard and Special Perils Policy referred to above as also the value of the Plant & Machinery and Accessories Rs. 77 Crore and Stock and Stock-in-Process Rs. 12 Crore insured, we are of the considered opinion that the Clause 7 of the General Exclusion cannot be applied in the present case for the reason that the Opposite Party Insurance Company had undertaken to pay to the Complainant Company the value of the property at the happening of its destruction or the amount of such damage or at its option reinstate or replace such property or any part thereof, if any part of the property is destroyed or damaged by any of the perils specified therein.It is not in dispute that the property including the Plant & Machinery as also Stock / Work-in-Progress had been destroyed / damaged by the fire which took place on 22.06.2015 due to short-circuit.Clause 7 of the General Exclusions cannot be applied for the reason that the damage had been caused by the massive fire which took place in the factory premises of the Complainant Company.It cannot be the case of applying a simple ground of short-circuit because the electrical machines, apparatus, etc. Furniture, Fixtures and Fittings were not damaged because of short-circuit but because of the massive fire which occurred. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the Complainant Company was fully justified in lodging the claim of Rs. 292,664,553/- (Rupees Twenty Nine Crore Twenty Six Lakh Sixty Four Thousand Five Hundred Fifty Three only) and Opposite Party Insurance Company was not justified in limiting the claim to Rs. 100,934,774/- (Rupees Ten Crore Nine Lakh Thirty Four Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy Four only).Needless to mention that the Surveyor had assessed the loss at Rs. 180,243,552/- (Rupees Eighteen Crore Two Lakh Forty Three Thousand Five Hundred Fifty Two only) and that too was not accepted by the Opposite Party Insurance Company.We may mention that against the Report submitted by the Surveyor, the Complainant Company had pointed out the discrepancies which were genuine.

The Work-in-Progress stock were drained out from the Reactors, Columns and Pipelines at the Camphor Plant, only to avoid fire/explosion in the Camphor Plant, otherwise the Opposite Party Insurance Company would have to bear the loss / damage of about Rs. 80 Crore to Rs. 100 Crore, which would have resulted in huge financial loss to the Opposite Party Insurance Company and, therefore, the Complainant was justified in claiming this loss towards the Stock / Work-in-Progress item Policy.The stand of the Opposite Party Insurance Company that it is not liable to pay the loss/damage caused to the Work-in-Progress (WIP) which were drained out from the Reactors, Columns and the Pipelines at the Camphor Plant cannot be accepted as if this step had not been taken by the Complainant Company the fire would have spread causing massive damage to the Camphor Plant and the Opposite Party Insurance Company would have burdened to pay a much higher amount of loss / damage.It reminds us the famous saying "Penny wise Pound foolish".There is deficiency of service in the action of the Opposite Party Insurance Company.

The submission that the Complainant Company had given its consent for receiving the amount as determined by the Surveyor loses its significance for the simple reason that the Opposite Party Insurance Company did not accept the loss/damages assessed by the Surveyor.

We are not going into the other pleas raised by the learned Counsel for either of the Parties as this case is being decided on the main issue.

In view of the foregoing discussions, the Complaint is partly allowed.The Opposite Party Insurance Company is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 161,721,556/- (Rupees Sixteen Crore Seventeen Lakh Twenty One Thousand Five Hundred Fifty Six only) as claimed in Relief (e) to the Complainant Company alongwith interest @12% p.a. with quarterly rest w.e.f. 22.06.2015 till the date of realization within a period of three months from today failing which the Opposite Party Insurance Company will be liable to pay interest @15% p.a. with quarterly rest.The Opposite Party Insurance Company shall also pay a sum of Rs. 10 lakh towards costs of litigation to the Complainant Company.