Back
2018 Supreme(Del) 708
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J.
Lucknow Medical Agencies - Appellant
Versus
Arjun Lal & Ors. - Respondents
RFA No. 244 of 2018
Decided On : 12-03-2018
For the Appellant :Mr. V.K. Mishra, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Ms. Shashi Gupta, Adv. for Mr. Mukesh Gupta, standing counsel.
The principle of law that a person will be compensated for loss only once and not twice, as per Section 41 of the Indian Contract Act, was applied to discharge the liability of the defendants.
Headnote:
Tortuous Negligence - Recovery of Damages - Code of Civil Procedure, CPC - Section 96 - Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 113 - Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Section 41
Fact of the Case:
The appellant/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of damages against three defendants for destruction of drugs due to a fire in the tenanted premises. The trial court dismissed the suit on grounds of no evidence of tortuous negligence, time-barred, and compensation received from the insurance company.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court dismissed the suit on the grounds that there was no evidence of tortuous negligence, the suit was time-barred, and the appellant/plaintiff had already received compensation from the insurance company. The High Court concurred with the trial court's findings.
Issues: The issues included the responsibility for the fire, running of a factory, compensation from the insurance company, and the competence of the plaintiff to institute the suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the suit was time-barred, there was no evidence of tortuous negligence, and the appellant/plaintiff had already received compensation from the insurance company, thereby discharging the liability of the defendants.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed as there was no merit in the case.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
CM No. 9329/2018 (delay of 98 days in re-filing)
For the reasons stated in the application, delay in re-filing is condoned. CM stands disposed of.
RFA 244/2018
1. This Regular First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, CPC by the plaintiff in the suit impugning the judgment of the Trial Court dated 31.7.2017 by which the trial court has dismissed the suit for recovery of damages of Rs.30,44,433.00/- filed by the appellant/plaintiff against a total of three defendants. Defendant no.1/Mr. Arjun Lal was the main contesting defendant and in whose premises a fire had occurred. Defendant no.2 was the owner of the premises in which the defendant no.1 was the tenant. Defendant no.3 is the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The three defendants are also the three respondents in this appeal.
2. Appellant/plaintiff filed the subject suit pleading that the appellant/plaintiff was a tenant in the first floor of the property bearing no.60A, Central Market, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi belonging to the respondent no.2/defendant no.2. The respondent no.1/defendant no.1 was a tenant in the ground-floor and mezzanine floor of the same property. The respondent no.1/defendant no.1 in his tenanted premises was besides running his business of pastry/bakery shop. In the mezzanine floor the respondent no.1/defendant no.1 was running a factory for manufacturing of bakery products. In the night of 27.4.1995 a fire broke out in the tenanted premises of the respondent no.1/defendant no.1. As a result of the fire, there took place destruction of the drugs worth lacs of rupees of the appellant/plaintiff stored in the tenanted premises. Appellant/plaintiff pleads that respondent no.1/defendant no.1 was illegally carrying on a factory for manufacturing of the bakery products without any license of respondent no.3/defendant no.3 who failed to perform its duty. The subject suit was therefore filed pleading that respondent nos.1 and 2/defendant nos. 1 and 2 are jointly and severely liable to pay the suit amount of Rs. 30,44,433.00/- under the different heads of loss of material, loss of fixtures, loss of profit, compensation for mental torture etc. appellant/plaintiff served a legal notice dated 10.4.1998 upon the respondent no.1/defendant no.1 but since respondent no.1/defendant no.1 did not pay the amount therefore the subject suit came to be filed.
3. The suit was contested by the respondent no.1/defendant no.1 and he pleaded that he was not running on any factory for manufacturing bakery products and that he was simply selling bakery products in the premises belonging to the respondent no.2/defendant no.2 and tenanted to the respondent no.1/defendant no. 1. Respondent no.1/defendant no.1 also denied his negligence as alleged by the appellant/plaintiff and pleaded that the fire department had reported that the fire took place on account of electric short circuit and not because of any negligence on the part of the respondent no.1/defendant no.1. It was also pleaded by the respondent no.1/defendant no.1 that the appellant/plaintiff has filed the suit concealing the fact that he has already received the entire compensation from the insurance company. Suit was therefore prayed to be dismissed.
4. After pleadings were complete the following issues were framed by the trial court:-
“(1) Whether the Defendant no.1 is responsible for fire breaking in the suit premises situated at 60-A, Central Market, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi? OPP
(2) Whether Defendant no.1 is running any factory from the mezzanine floor situated in the suit premises at the relevant time? OPP
(3) Whether the plaintiff has already been compensated by the Insurance Company for the loss occurred due to the fire and if so, whether the present claim?
(4) Whether Mr. Ramesh Kumar Gupta is competent and authorized to sign and verify the pleadings and institute the suit? OPP
(5) Relief”
5. Trial court has dismissed the suit by holding that respondent no.1/defendant no.1
