IMPORTANT POINT
The execution of a full and final settlement under duress does not preclude a claimant from pursuing legitimate compensation.

JUDGMENT :

Munnuri Laxman, J.

1) In the present Civil Misc. Appeal, the challenge is made to the judgment and decree dated 29.01.2024 passed by the Commercial Court No.2, Jodhpur on the file of Original Civil Suit No.25/2021 (N.C.V. No.23/2019), wherein and whereby the claim of the plaintiff was partly allowed as follows:-

(i) The stock damage was assessed to Rs.3,27,46,896/-, building damage was assessed to Rs.59,65,123/-, plant & machinery damage was assessed to Rs.22,48,974/-and damage to furniture & fixtures was assessed to Rs.6,98,759/-. The total damage was assessed to Rs.4,16,59,752/-. An amount of Rs.2,08,30,757/-already paid was deducted and the balance amount payable was Rs.2,08,28,995/-.

(ii) The interest @ 9% per annum was awarded from 21.10.2015 to till the amounts are deposited.

(iii) The plaintiff’s claim for compensation was partly allowed granting Rs.2,00,000/- and cost was also awarpresented the claim before the defendant claiming the folled.

2) The present appeal is filed by the defendant-Insurance Company. For clarity, the ranks of the parties as were referred in the suit, is maintained.

3) The plaintiff is a Private Limited Company, which is involved in manufacturing of Handicrafts for export to Foreign Countries. The factory is located in Jodhpur. The plaintiff obtained insurance policy by way of renewal on 11.10.2014. The policy was valid from 13.10.2014 to 12.10.2015. The sum of the insured amount was Rs.6,75,00,000/-, which includes stock value of Rs.4,50,00,000/-, building coverage of Rs.1,50,00,000/-, furniture and fixtures value of Rs.15,00,000/- and plant & machinery value of Rs.60,00,000/-.

4) On 20.04.2015 at about 6 p.m., fire accident occurred in the insured premises due to the short-circuit. Immediately, the information of fire was furnished to the Police Station Rajiv Gandhi Nagar, Jodhpur and also reported to the Insurance Company. The fire services were also requisitioned and fire was put out after 8-9 hours. The Senior Officers of the defendant-Company inspected the spot immediately and Surveyor, Mr.B.K.Modi (DW-1), was also appointed to conduct survey by physical verification of the insured premises. The Surveyor had surveyed for three consecutive dates and prepared the list of damaged and unaffected items in the insured premises. The defendant being unsatisfied with the data collected by the surveyor, appointed another surveyor Mr.A.M.Patel (DW-3) in addition to Mr.B.K.Modi (DW-1) and they visited the premises after 10 days of the incident and conducted survey and submitted a report to the defendant-Company.

5) The plaintiff presented the claim before the defendant claiming the following amounts:-

6) The plaintiff submitted all the materials available with him so as to substantiate the claim made by him. The plaintiff was made to run from pillar to post. He was called to the Head Office of defendant at Ahmedabad on 06.12.2015 and asked to sign on settlement for Rs.2,08,67,564/-. The plaintiff on account of financial position, could accept the unilateral settlement by signing the voucher sent by the defendant. Later, the plaintiff claimed for balance amount of Rs.3,68,55,323/-.

7) The plaintiff’s claim is that prior to the fire accident, the insured premises was having stock worth Rs.4,79,42,000/-, which the Surveyor refused to accept. However, the stock value was assessed basing on the stock shown in the financial ending of previous financial year and fixed value of the stock as Rs.2,73,63,400/-. According to the plaintiff, during the Financial Year 2013-14, the sales value were shown as Rs.10,03,92,174/-and the next Financial Year i.e. 2014-15, the sales value were shown as Rs.11