Plea and claim for compensation from insurance company held established.

M. Thanikachalam, J.

The unsuccessful plaintiff in C.S.No.1052 of 199O, who has laid the suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs.14,84,660.32, is the appellant.

2. The brief facts leading to the dismissal of the suit are as follows:

(a) The plaintiff firm is carrying on business in cotton. It had insured its stock of cotton of all varieties with the first respondent/first defendant under two policies, bearing numbers 051000/01/1/07078 for a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- and 051000/01/1/070795 for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- on 3.6.1986 and 10.6.1986 respectively. The properties were insured against fire, under which the first respondent/first defendant is entitled to compensate the damage, if any suffered by the plaintiff, by fire.

(b) On 28.6.1986, at about 3.00 a.m., there was a fire in the godown of the plaintiff firm, where stocks were stored, which was put off by the fire brigade subsequently. In the meantime, the entire godown and stock were destroyed by the fire, which was inspected by the first defendant's Assistant Divisional Manager, who came to the spot on the same day at about 10.00 a.m. At about 11.45 a.m., the first defendant's Surveyor also came to the scene, conducted preliminary survey. The stock stored in the godown of the plaintiff's firm, which was valued at Rs.9,92,420/-, was destroyed completely, thereby making total loss. The plaintiff's claim for the above said amount, made to the first defendant on 17.10.1986 was repudiated by the first defendant only on 20.3.1989, that too, without mentioning any grounds. Under the above circumstances, the plaintiff/ appellant, was constrained to file the suit, for recovery of the suit claim.

(c) The first respondent in its written statement, not admitting the worth of the stock as Rs.9,92,420/- in the godown, had contended, that the stock is exaggerated, that the claim of interest is untenable, that the independent survey conducted at the request of the defendant has not made out the case of the plaintiff, that the cause of fire alleged is imaginary, that the pressed bales stated to have been procured on credit basis is incorrect, that even according to the surveyor's report, the value of the stock at the time of the loss, even on the basis of the unreliable document of the plaintiff, was only Rs.4,50,474/-, that there is no good faith in the claim of the plaintiff and in this view, the plaintiff is not even entitled to the amount assessed by the surveyor.

(d) The Union Bank of India, who had advanced the loan to the plaintiff, had stated that the decreetal amount may be directed to be paid through the bank.

(e) On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Judge had framed the following issues for consideration.

(i) Whether the fire in the godown was due to a cause covered by the policy of insurance?

(ii) What is the amount of indemnity the plaintiff is entitled to under the policy of insurance?

(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest, if so, at what rate?

(iv) Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this suit?

(f) The plaintiff, as well as the contesting defendants, in support of their rival contentions, produced documents, as well as adduced oral evidence. The learned Judge evaluating the materials placed before him, had come to the conclusion, that the plaintiff has failed to prove the actual stock in trade, which is said to have been destroyed by fire, by producing acceptable documents, though it was claimed that they were available, that the documents produced by the plaintiff are self serving, not dependable, that the cause of fire pleaded is not at all made out and it cannot be attributed to any extent or to any negligence, that the good faith, on which the contract of insurance is based, has not been made out, whereas there are uncleared suspicion and that the fire in the godown is not a risk covered by the policy.

(g) On the basis of the above conclusion, the learned Judge unable to satisfy the claim of the plaintiff, dismissed the suit