IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that an insurance policy is valid if obtained before the insured event, and misrepresentation claims must be substantiated by evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna Rao, J.

This Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure [for short ‘the C.P.C.’], is filed by the Appellants/Defendant Nos.5 and 6, challenging the Decree and Judgment, dated 16.02.2001 in O.S.No.96 of 1996 passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati [for short ‘the Trial Court’]. The 1st Respondent herein is the plaintiff, respondent Nos.2 to 5 are defendant Nos.1 to 4 and the appellants are the defendant Nos.5 and 6 in the said Suit.

2. The 1st respondent/plaintiff filed the Suit for recovery of Rs.2,24,615/- being the amount payable by the defendants towards repairing charges and damages with interest at 12% per annum from 05.04.1993 to 20.02.1996.

3. Both the parties in the Appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Trial Court.

4. The brief averments in the plaint in O.S. No.96 of 1996 are as under:

(i) On 20.01.1993 Yash Plast Industries, Ahmadabad booked the plaint schedule property at 3rd defendant’s office to transport the same to the plaintiff’s factory at Tirupati from Ahmadabad under Lorry receipt No.A92224, dated 20.01.1993. On 22.01.1993 the Yash Plast Industries issued telegram to the plaintiff asking the plaintiff to get Marine-cum-Erection Insurance Policy for the schedule property immediately. Plaintiff approached the defendant Nos.5 & 6 and gave proposal form for Marine-cum-Erection Insurance Policy. On 29.01.1993 defendant Nos.5 and 6 issued policy and then the plaintiff informed the same by phone to 3rd defendant to lift the goods for transportation. The 3rd defendant promised to deliver the goods at plaintiff’s factory by 05.02.1993. For the above transportation of the goods, defendants charged a sum of Rs.10,025/- from the plaintiff whereas normal charge is Rs.10,000/- for 10 tones.

(ii) It is further averred in the plaint that the 1st defendant gave intimation on 25.02.1993 and requested the plaintiff to take delivery of the goods. Immediately the plaintiff visited the office of the 1st defendant and shocked to note that the goods were damaged in the transport and refused to take delivery unless letter of acknowledgement of damages by 1st defendant was given. The 2nd defendant gave a letter to that effect on 26.02.1993 clearly admitting their negligence and damage to the goods in the transport. Plaintiff took delivery and immediately informed the same not only to 2nd defendant but also to defendant Nos.5 and 6, requesting the insurance people to send the surveyor to assess the damages. Surveyor visited the goods on 07.03.1993 and later filed a report. Plaintiff sent back the goods to Yash Plast Industries, Ahmadabad and got them repaired. Plaintiff paid Rs.14,500/- towards transporting charges for the machinery from Tirupati to Ahmadabad and back. The company charged Rs.1,17,000/- towards inauguration and hence he filed the suit claiming damages of Rs.50,000/- plus Rs.1,17,000/- spend towards repairs. Interest is claimed at 12% per annum till the date of realization.

(iii) It is further averred in the plaint that after inspection of P.W.2, Development Officer of defendant Nos.5 and 6, approached the plaintiff and asked him to pay additional premium on the ground that he collected less premium by mistake and the plaintiff paid the same. But, the Insurance Company repudiated the claim on the ground that the plaintiff suppressed the fact of damages on 09.03.1993, when he paid premium and hence, there is no liability to the Insurance Company. Hence, the suit.

5. The brief averments in the written statement filed by the defendant Nos.1 to 4 by contending that they have not collected excess amount from the plaintiff and hence plaintiff has no right to claim damages. They are not liable to pay any amount for the negligence and carelessness. Moreover, they stated that the liability is only with the defendant Nos.5 and 6.

6. The brief averments in the written statement filed by the defendant Nos.5 and 6 by contending that the pl