Back
2014 Supreme(Del) 854
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Pradeep Nandrajog and Jayant Nath, JJ.
Kusum Sahni Pvt. Ltd. - Appellants
Vs.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. - Respondent
RFA (OS) 97 of 2013
Decided on : 14.03.2014
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff:Mr. Sanjeev Anand, Mrs. Kajal Chandra, Mr. Arush Khanna and Ms. Prachi Gupta, Advocates
For Respondents/Defendant:Mr. Yogesh Malhotra, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's discretion in assessing losses and granting interest, based on the evidence and conduct of the parties.
Headnote:
Insurance - Fire Insurance - Code of Civil Procedure, Delhi High Court Act - Section 96, Section 10 - [KEYWORD] - [SUBJECT] - [Code of Civil Procedure, Delhi High Court Act, 1966, Section 96, Section 10] - The court discussed the assessment of losses suffered by the appellant in a fire and the validity of the surveyor report. The court also examined the entitlement of the appellant to recover an amount from the defendant and the grant of interest to the appellant.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, engaged in business, suffered a fire in its sheds and claimed losses covered under an insurance policy. The respondent disputed the claim, alleging non-compliance with policy terms and conditions and manipulation of the fire. The appellant filed a suit claiming the losses and damages for non-payment of the insurance claim.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the joint surveyors' assessment of losses suffered by the appellant and rejected the appellant's claim for a higher amount. The court also declined to grant interest to the appellant for the period of delay in prosecuting the suit.
Issues: The issues included the validity of the surveyor report, entitlement of the appellant to recover an amount from the defendant, and the grant of interest to the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the appellant failed to prove any infirmity in the impugned order on the findings regarding the assessment of losses. The court also held that there was no equity in favor of the appellant for claiming interest for the period of delay in prosecuting the suit.
Final Decision: The court upheld the findings on the assessment of losses and declined to grant interest to the appellant for the period of delay in prosecuting the suit.
Jayant Nath, J.
1. The present Regular First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966 challenging judgment and decree dated May 28, 2012 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. The plaint is filed stating that the appellant is carrying on business from various tin sheds located in the Industrial Complex of Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase-I, Delhi and is engaged in the business of hand block printing, screen printing, manufacture of fashion accessories, home furnishings and readymade garments. We are for the purpose of this appeal concerned with Shed Nos. 203 and 204. The appellant took out an insurance policy from the respondent against loss by fire, etc. The insurance policy was issued by the respondent on January 22, 1981 and May 29, 1981. Amendment of the policy as contained in the appellant's letters dated May 29, 1981 and June 10, 1981 were also carried out. It is stated that by virtue of the said insurance, the assets of the appellant's company as follows were insured :
(1) On stock in trade, clothes, finished goods, dies, semi-finished goods chemicals and like use for printing cloth lying in Shed Nos. 220, 223, 192, 193, 217, 218, 203, 204, 153, 139 and A-2, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi.
...Rs. 30 lakhs
(2) On stock of plant and machinery workshop equipment, office equipment air-conditioners, coolers and refrigeration equipment & electrical fittings, furniture, fixtures and fittings hand blocks, tables, in Shed Nos. 220, 223, 192, 193, 217, 218, 203, 204, 153, 139, and A-2 Maharani Bagh, New Delhi.
...Rs. 10 lakh
Total ...Rs. 40 lakh
2. On the night of 15th/16th June, 1981 at around 1.00 a.m. a fire took place in shed Nos. 203 and 204. The fire is stated to have destroyed not only the building but also the goods of the appellant's company including finished goods, fabrics, etc. The appellant claims to have suffered a loss of Rs. 18,00,000/- (Rupees eighteen lacs only). The respondent was informed on June 16, 1981. The respondent initially appointed M/s. Mehta and Padamsey Pvt. Ltd. as surveyors to assess the damage and losses. Later on, the respondent re-appointed joint surveyors, namely, M/s. V.N. Sarin Co. Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. J.D. Gulshan & Co.
3. As there was stated to be delay by the respondent in settlement of the case of the appellant, the appellant filed a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 before this Court being Suit No. 853A/1982 in 1982 for referring the appellant's claim for arbitration. It is stated that in the said proceedings initiated by the appellant, the respondent filed the survey report where the surveyors have not disputed that the fire did occur and have assessed the losses suffered by the appellant at between Rs. 5,92,829 (Rupees five lacs nine two thousand eight hundred twenty nine only) and Rs. 14,55,605/- (Rupees fourteen lacs fifty five thousand six hundred five only).
4. While the Arbitration Petition was pending, the appellant filed the present suit. It is claimed in the plaint that the said assessment in the surveyors report is incorrect as certain errors in accounting and calculations have been committed by the surveyors. It is urged that the respondent is actually liable to pay the sum of Rs. 18,00,000/- (Rupees eighteen lacs only) being the amount of losses suffered by the appellant in the fire. The appellant further claims a sum of Rs. 8,50,000/- (Rupees eight lacs fifty thousand only) by way of damages on account of business losses suffered by the appellant for non-payment of the insurance claim.
5. The respondent in their written statement took various objections. It is claimed that the fire was not accidental but manipulated, planned and the claim is bogus. It is further stated that the appellant failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the policy as the appellant did not produce either the books of accounts or the statement of its claim within the period allowed under the ins
