M.L. Mehta, J.

1. This suit is filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.22,29,193/-(Rupees Twenty Two Lakhs Twenty Nine Thousand One Hundred and Ninety Three only) beside interest @ 18% p.a amounting to Rs.34,31,502/-(Rupees Thirty Four Lakhs Thirty One Thousand Five Hundred and Two only) and pendente lite and future interest @ 24% p.a.

2. The plaintiff is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the manufacture and sale of PVC flexible pipes and compounds. The defendant no.1 is an insurance company having its Divisional Office-X, located at Hanuman Road, New Delhi and Divisional Office-V on the 7th floor, Hemkunt Tower, Rajendra Place, New Delhi. Both these offices have been arrayed as defendant nos. 2 and 3 respectively.

3. It is the case of the plaintiff that it took from the defendants, insurance for a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/-(Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only) vide policy no. 351000/1100563/95, dated 08.06.1995. This policy was for the period from 06.05.1995 till 05.05.1996 and covered machinery that was insured for Rs. 13,40,000/-(Rupees Thirteen Lakhs Forty Thousand Only) and a generator set insured for Rs. 1,60,000/-(Rupees One Lakh Sixty Thousand Only). Further, vide policy no. 3100695/95 dated 30.10.1995, stocks amounting to Rs. 5,00,000/-(Rupees Five Lakh Only) was insured. Therefore, the cumulative amount insured came upto Rs. 20,00,000/-(Rupees Twenty Lakhs only).

4. Subsequently, the plaintiff submits that it purchased certain machinery in February 1996, which was installed in April 1996. Vide letter dated 01.05.1996, the plaintiff requested the defendants to enhance the sum insured by another Rs. 20,00,000/-(Rupees Twenty Lakhs only) so as to cover the newly installed machinery. In furtherance of the same, a cheque numbered 731758, dated 01.05.1996, for Rs. 929/-(Rupees Nine Hundred and Twenty Nine only), was drawn on Canara Bank, Connaught Circus.

5. It is contended that both the cheque and the letter requesting enhancement were delivered to the defendant no. 2’s address at Hanuman Road, which was duly received and accepted on the same day by the Senior Divisional Manager of defendant no.2, Mr. M.M Dutt. And that on contacting Mr. M.M Dutt regarding endorsement of the policy, the plaintiff was informed that their file had been transferred to defendant no.3’s office, which would give the endorsement. Thereafter, the endorsement was issued by defendant no.3 being Endorsement no. 350500/E/31/96/96 dated 06.05.1996, enhancing the sun insured by another Rs.20,00,000/-(Rupees Twenty Lakhs only), w.e.f 02.05.1996 to 05.05.1996. Thereby, the total amount insured stood increased to Rs. 35,00,000/-(Rupees Thirty Five Lakhs only).

6. The plaintiff contends that the endorsement should have been effected from 01.05.1996 i.e. when the letter along with the premium amount was accepted. That being so, the plaintiff requested the defendant no.3 vide letter dated 24.05.1996 to make requisite corrections to the endorsement so as to make it effective from 01.05.1996 and not from 02.05.1996.

7. The plaintiff further submits that a fire broke out in its factory on the morning of 02.05.1996, where the insured stocks and machinery were lying. A report was lodged with the local police and the defendants were informed of the incident. The plaintiff requested the defendants to register their claim and depute a surveyor. In furtherance of this request, the defendants appointed M/s S.N. Nanda and Company as surveyors who submitted their assessment report. Based on the report, the plaintiffs claims the following amounts:

a. Claim towards loss of machinery: Rs. 43,07,615/-(Rupees Forty three Lakhs, Seven Thousand Six Hundred and Fifteen only)

b. Claim towards loss of stocks: Rs. 6,56,490/-(Rupees Six Lakhs Fifty Six Thousand Four Hundred and Ninety only) Thus, the plaintiff claims a total of Rs. 49, 64, 105/-(Rupees Forty Nine Lakhs Sixty Four Thousand One Hundred and Five only).

8. The plaintiff submits that a