The duty to disclose material facts runs throughout the continuance of the contract of insurance and it is binding on both parties to the contract.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: The suit is filed under Order VI Rule 1 of O.S. Rules r/w Order VII Rule 1 of CPC to direct the Defendants to pay a sum of Rs.6,82,49,000/- together with future interest thereon @ 24% per annum from the date of plaint till the date of realization and for the costs of the suit.)

1. The suit was filed by the insured under a standard fire and special perils policy against the insurer for recovery of a sum of Rs.6,82,49,000/- with interest thereon at 24% per annum from the date of plaint till the date of realization.

2. The Plaintiff is a proprietary concern, represented by its proprietor, Mr.K.Sekar. The Plaintiff is engaged in the business of selling garments. The Plaintiff stated that its stocks-in-trade are purchased from suppliers either on cash and carry or credit basis, and that the monthly turnover is about Rs.25,00,000/-. For purposes of the above business, the Plaintiff established a showroom in Thiruvannamalai on 29.08.2012 in premises measuring about 7500 sq.ft. and consisting of three floors. According to the Plaintiff, garments were purchased and stocked in the said premises. The Plaintiff also incurred expenditure towards infrastructure such as false ceiling, electrical work, facelift, wood and glass work and air-conditioning. The shop was insured by the first and second Defendants(the Insurer) under a standard fire and special perils policy bearing Policy No.012102/11/13/11/00000470, which was valid from 17:00 hours on 25.03.2014 until midnight of 24.03.2015. The insured perils were enumerated in the policy and covered 12 perils such as fire, lightning, explosion, storm, etc. The sum insured under the policy is Rs.6,82,49,000/-. The original copy of the insurance policy was mortgaged with the Bank of Baroda, Thiruvannamalai Branch, the third Defendant herein.

3. The Plaintiff stated that there was a fire at the shop on 20.10.2014 at about 8:00 p.m. On the same date, the Plaintiff was informed about the fire. Therefore, the Plaintiff lodged a police complaint, which was registered under Crime No.536 of 2014 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Town Police Station, Thiruvannamalai. The Plaintiff informed the Insurer about the fire accident and submitted a claim on 24.10.2014 for a sum of Rs.7,49,32,000/-. The said claim covered the value of stock, electrical equipments and other fittings. The police authorities investigated the cause of the accident on the basis of the report of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and the Assistant Director of the Tamil Nadu Forensic Sciences Department. On such basis, the final report dated 27.10.2015 was filed before the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Thiruvannamalai, stating that the fire was caused accidentally.

4. The Insurer appointed an independent surveyor, namely, M/s.Meticulous Surveyors, to conduct a survey and also appointed one Mr.M.S.Prasad as the Investigator. Subsequently, the Insurer issued a letter of repudiation on 31.03.2016 rejecting the Plaintiff's claim. Since the letter of repudiation was sent to the address at which the shop was functioning earlier, it was not received until the repudiation letter was sent to the other shop of the Plaintiff on 12.04.2016. According to the Plaintiff, the reasons specified in the repudiation letter, namely, the breach of condition Nos.1, 3(a) and (b) of the fire policy are not valid. The Plaintiff stated that the dispute between the Plaintiff, as the tenant, and his landlord is being made an excuse to evade the liability of the Insurer. According to the Plaintiff, the fact that the landlord sealed the main entrance door of the premises by welding the lock did not, in any manner, enhance the risk or cause the fire. The Plaintiff also pointed out that the report of the statutory authority, which is the Forensic Sciences Department, was ignored by the Insurer. Similarly, the final report of the police was also disregarded. In support of the claim, the Plaintiff relied upon the purchase bills for purchase of garments.

5. The