P.K. Musahary, J.

1. This revision petition filed under Rule 32 of the Rules for Administration of Justice and Police in Nagaland (Third Amendment) Act, 1984 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the judgment and order dated 21.9.2005 passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner (J) Nagaland, Dimapur in Civil Appeal No. 4/2000 enhancing the decretal amount from Rs.91,500/- with 15% interest and Rs.10,821.60 being cost of court fee etc awarded by the learned Assistant to Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur in Civil Suit No. 20/92 in favour of the opposite party/plaintiff to Rs.6,50,000/-.

2. The present respondent is the plaintiff in the Civil Suit No. 20/92. He owns a Saw Mill in the name and style of M/s Dimapur Saw Mill situated at Circular Road, Dimapur.

3. The petitioner is the Defendant /Insurance company in the said suit. The case of the petitioner is that it issued a Fire Policy from its Dimapur office in favour of respondent for the period from 22.7.1988 to 21.7.1989, covering fire risk in respect of plant and machineries, accessories for Rs.2,50,000/-, for stock another sum of Rs.2,50,000/- giving total coverage of Rs. 5 lacs only on the terms and conditions mentioned in the policy. To that effect the respondent /plaintiff paid the prescribed premium of Rs.500/- for the said policy. The Dimapur Branch of the petitioner-company received a communication dated 16.6.1989 from the respondent/plaintiff intimating about the fire incident of 10.6.1989 and in the said incident he suffered loss to the tune of Rs.91,500/- under the following heads:

1) 3 thatched houses - Rs.76,000.00

2) Labour articles - Rs.10,000.00

3) Iron sheets - Rs. 5,000.00

4. The petitioner/ defendant company scrutinized the claim of the respondent for damage and vide letter dated 12.11.90, it informed the respondent that the claim would not be payable as the policy did not cover the aforesaid damages. Being aggrieved, the opposite party filed the aforesaid civil suit before the learned Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur.

5. The case of the respondent/plaintiff is that on 16.6.89, a devastating fire broke out in his aforesaid Mill and gutted the round and swan timbers, plant and machineries including sheds etc in the said Saw Mill premises. He intimated the petitioner/defendant-insurance company about the incident of fire and the resultant loss. The respondent filed claim petition with original insurance policy and all other relevant documents relating to the said fire incident and the loss caused to him for settlement of the insurance claimed. The respondent as well as his banker SBI, Dimapur Branch, repeatedly requested the petitioner-defendant for settlement of the claim, but, due to non settlement of the claim by the petitioner/defendant, the business of the respondent got totally collapsed. The respondent filed a complaint in the West Dimapur Police Station regarding the fire incident. Finally the respondent filed the above suit claiming final compensation under different heads:

i. Loss of stock machineries etc - Rs.48,80,000/-

ii. Bank interest on loss w.e.f. Rs.40,00,000/-

iii. Other loss Rs. 2,00,000/-

Total Rs.10,80,000.00

6. The learned trial court framed as many as 16 issues for disposal of the suit. However, amongst them, according to the defendant /petitioner the most relevant issues are issue Nos. 7,8,9,10 and 16. For ready reference the said issues are quoted below:

7. Whether the plaintiff suffered loss of Rs.4,80,000/- due to devastating fire on 10.06.1989?

8. Whether the claim lodged by the plaintiff to the defendant- insurance company was Rs.4,80,000.00 or Rs.91,500/- on 12.6.1989 ?

9. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any compensation in addition to the actual losses sustained ?

9. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to Rs.10,80,000/- as claim in the suit including bank interest on loan and other loses /damages ?

16. Whether the property destroyed by fire are covered by the fire policy and if not whether the